Does the trial court abuse its discretion to exclude prejudicial evidence at trial?

Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in ruling that the probative value of the proffered evidence would have outweighed its prejudicial effect. " "Prejudice" as contemplated by [Evidence Code] section 352 is not so sweeping as to include any evidence the opponent finds inconvenient. Evidence is not prejudicial, as that term is used in a section 352 context, merely because it undermines the opponent's position or shores up that of the proponent.... " The "prejudice" referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues. In applying section 352, "prejudicial" is not synonymous with "damaging." [Citation.]" [Citation.] [] The prejudice that section 352" is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence. [Citations.] Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of "prejudging" a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors. [Citation.] [Citation.]" [Citation.] In other words, evidence should be excluded as unduly prejudicial when it is of such nature as to inflame the emotions of the jury, motivating them to use the information, not to logically evaluate the point upon which it is relevant, but to reward or punish one side because of the jurors' emotional reaction. In such a circumstance, the evidence is unduly prejudicial because of the substantial likelihood the jury will use it for an illegitimate purpose.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Doolin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 438-439, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 198 P.3d 11.)

[406 P.3d 769]