How have courts dealt with the issue of improper exclusion of evidence in an evidentiary review?

Similarly, we will not here resolve this outstanding issue, as our conclusions are sound under either theory. (See In re R.T. (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1301, 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 338 [a court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard]; Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, 281, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 186 [an evidentiary ruling that transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law is an abuse of discretion].) With respect to the consequences of our evidentiary review, however, we will follow the tenetcorrectly pointed out by both partiesthat the erroneous exclusion of evidence by the trial court is not grounds for reversal unless we also determine that the error was prejudicial. (Evid. Code, 354, subd. (a) [judgment shall not be reversed due to the erroneous exclusion of evidence unless the error resulted in a miscarriage of

[1 Cal.App.5th 142]