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

We review the court's evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion. (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 717.) "'Relevant evidence' means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action." (Evid. Code, 210.) The court has discretion to exclude even relevant evidence when "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury." (Evid. Code, 352.) In particular, "the latitude [Evidence Code] section 352 allows for exclusion of impeachment evidence in individual cases is broad. The statute empowers courts to prevent criminal trials from degenerating into nitpicking wars of attrition over collateral credibility issues." (People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 296, superseded on other grounds by Evid. Code, 452.5.) "[C]ourts may and should consider with particular care whether the admission of such [impeachment] evidence might involve undue time, confusion, or prejudice which outweighs its probative value." (Id. at pp. 296-297.)