What is the test for making a federal constitutional claim on appeal?

Although defendant raises a federal constitutional claim on appeal, trial counsel did not do so in the court below. " 'In those instances where he did not present constitutional theories below, it appears that either (1) the appellate claim is one that required no objection to preserve it, or (2) the new arguments are based on factual or legal standards no different from those the trial court was asked to apply, but raise the additional legal consequence of violating the Constitution. "To that extent, defendant's new constitutional arguments are not forfeited on appeal." [Citation.] [But no] separate constitutional discussion is required, or provided, when rejection of a claim on the merits necessarily leads to rejection of any constitutional theory or "gloss" raised for the first time here.' " (People v. Carrasco (2014) 59 Cal.4th 924, 958.) This is a claim of the second type. We will therefore address the state-law underpinnings of defendant's claim and resolve it according to them.

We review a claim of this type for abuse of discretion. (People v. Hernandez (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, 1044, 1048 (Hernandez).) The burden is on the defendant to show there is a substantial danger of undue prejudice from the evidence. (Id. at pp. 1050-1051.)