What is the test for admitting evidence of abuse of the abuse of evidence for the purpose of motive and consciousness of guilt?

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence "for the purpose of motive and consciousness of guilt," because "neither motive nor consciousness of guilt are elements of the crimes with which appellant was charged," so "the probative value of the 2017 camera damage is minimal at best." He also asserts that "any consciousness of guilt would have occurred after committing the guilty act - not before." He further contends that the evidence was highly prejudicial because it "did not clearly show" that defendant was the person tampering with the camera, and it was likely to "inflame the jury with a desire to punish [defendant] for the property damage." We review the trial court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. (People v. McCurdy (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1063, 1095.)