What is the test for abuse of abuse of evidence in a criminal case?

confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury." Because trial courts have "wide discretion in assessing whether in a given case a particular piece of evidence is relevant and whether it is more prejudicial than probative," we review the court's decision for abuse of discretion. (People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 558.)

People v. Reyes (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 426 is instructive. In that case, defendant objected to a police detective's testimony that one of the trial witnesses provided critical information relating to five other murder investigations. (Id. at pp. 436-437.) Defendant argued that the detective's testimony constituted inadmissible opinion about the witness's credibility. The court disagreed, reasoning that "the detective did not offer or state an opinion about the witness's credibility. . . . The testimony was relevant and admissible, not as an opinion about [the witness's] credibility, but as evidence of conduct supporting it." (Id. at p. 437; citing People v. Harris (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1047, 1080-1082 [evidence of informant's prior reliability properly admitted for the purpose of proving his credibility as a trial witness].)