basis of extraneous factors in California

2024The ability to do so is what makes evidence relevant.” ’ ” (People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 490 .) Instead, “ ‘ “ ‘ “The ‘prejudice’ referred to in . . . section 352 applies to evidence [that] uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and [that] has very little effect on the issues.” ’ ” ’ ” (Scott, at p. 491.) “ ‘[T]he statute uses the word in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.’ ” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 958 .) “In the context of . . . sections 1108 and 1109, a defendant’s p

2023Sections 782 and 783 15 As we have observed, section 352 uses the word “prejudice” “ ‘in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.’ ” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 958 ; see also Vorse v. Sarasy (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 998, 1009 [“[E]vidence should be excluded as unduly prejudicial when it is of such nature as to inflame the emotions of the jur[ors], motivating them to use the information, not to logically evaluate the point upon which it is relevant, but to reward or punish one side because of the jurors’ emotional reaction.

2022(Harris, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 737 [evidence is unduly prejudicial under § 352 if it invites the jury to prejudge “ ‘ “a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors” ’ ”]; People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638 [“ ‘The “prejudice” referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues.’ ”]; People v. Sam (1969) 71 Cal.2d 194, 206 [“In short, defendant was made to appear to be an antisocial individual of generally bad character.… Certainly a

2021(Harris, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 737 [evidence is unduly prejudicial under § 352 if it invites the jury to prejudge “ ‘ “a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors” ’ ”]; People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638 [“ ‘The “prejudice” referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues.’ ”]; People v. Sam (1969) 71 Cal.2d 194, 206 [“In short, defendant was made to appear to be an antisocial individual of generally bad character.… Certainly a

2025Code, § 352.) “Evidence is prejudicial within the meaning of Evidence Code section 352 if it ‘ “uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against a party as an individual’ ” [citation] or if it would cause the jury to ‘ “ ‘prejudg[e]’ a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.” ’ ” (People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 475 .) “Due to these inherent risks, ‘uncharged offenses are admissible only if they have substantial probative value.’ ” (People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1331 .) Evidentiary challenges are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

2025Code, § 352.) “Evidence is prejudicial within the meaning of Evidence Code section 352 if it ‘ “uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against a party as an individual’ ” [citation] or if it would cause the jury to ‘ “ ‘prejudg[e]’ a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.” ’ ” (People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 475 .) “Due to these inherent risks, ‘uncharged offenses are admissible only if they have substantial probative value.’ ” (People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1331 .) Evidentiary challenges are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

2023Code, § 352; see Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 916–917.) The prejudice that Evidence Code section 352 seeks to avoid is not that which “ ‘ “naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727, 737 .) Rather, “ ‘prejudice’ ” in this context evokes “ ‘ “an emotional bias” ’ ” or “ ‘ “ ‘ “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Nguyen (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1115 .) 8.

2023Code, § 352; see Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 916–917.) The prejudice that Evidence Code section 352 seeks to avoid is not that which “ ‘ “naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727, 737 .) Rather, prejudice in this context evokes “ ‘ “an emotional bias” ’ ” or “ ‘ “ ‘ “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Nguyen (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1115 .) Evidence Code section 352 generally gives a trial court discretion to “ ‘exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially o

2022In applying section 352, “prejudicial” is not synonymous with “damaging.” ’ [Citation.]” [Citation.] . . . “ ‘Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” [Citation.] In other words, evidence should be excluded as unduly prejudicial when it is of such nature as to inflame the emotions of the jury, motivating them to use the information, not to logically evaluate the point upon which it is relevant, but to reward or punish one side because of the jurors’ emotional reaction.’ ” (People

2015Evidence Code section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence." [Citations.] "Rather, the statue uses the word in its etymological sense of 'prejudging' a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors." ' (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929 , 958 . . .; accord, People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 439 .

2023Sections 782 and 783 15 As we have observed, section 352 uses the word “prejudice” “ ‘in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.’ ” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 958 ; see also Vorse v. Sarasy (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 998, 1009 [“[E]vidence should be excluded as unduly prejudicial when it is of such nature as to inflame the emotions of the jur[ors], motivating them to use the information, not to logically evaluate the point upon which it is relevant, but to reward or punish one side because of the jurors’ emotional reaction.

2016(See Vorse v. Sarasy (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 998, 1009 ["The prejudice that [Evidence Code] section 352 ' "is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence." [Citation.] "Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of 'prejudging' a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.". . . '. . . ."].) II.

2026Instead, “evidence is considered unduly prejudicial if it tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and has a negligible bearing on the issues.” (People v. Mendoza (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1056, 1091 .) Section 352 permits the exclusion of evidence that 9 encourages “‘“‘“‘prejudging’ a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors. . . .”’”’” (People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 105 .) Evidence that the defendant in a criminal case committed an uncharged crime, tort or other act may be admissible to “prove some fact (such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation,

2021(See People v. Jackson (2014) 58 Cal.4th 724, 757 [admission of photographs of fetuses at “more advanced stages of development” may be misleading, highly inflammatory, and prejudicial]; People v. Gibson (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 119, 135 [trial court abused its discretion in admitting photographs that had slight probative value and that were “gruesome, revolting, and shocking to ordinary sensibilities”].) And although the video arguably would have caused the jury to be more sympathetic toward Jimenez, rather than have been damaging to his defense, Evidence Code section 352 uses the word “prejudice”

2025Code, § 352.) “Evidence is prejudicial within the meaning of Evidence Code section 352 if it ‘ “uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against a party as an individual’ ” [citation] or if it would cause the jury to ‘ “ ‘prejudg[e]’ a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.” ’ ” (People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 475 .) “Due to these inherent risks, ‘uncharged offenses are admissible only if they have substantial probative value.’ ” (People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1331 .) Evidentiary challenges are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

2025Code, § 352.) “Evidence is prejudicial within the meaning of Evidence Code section 352 if it ‘ “uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against a party as an individual’ ” [citation] or if it would cause the jury to ‘ “ ‘prejudg[e]’ a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.” ’ ” (People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 475 .) “Due to these inherent risks, ‘uncharged offenses are admissible only if they have substantial probative value.’ ” (People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1331 .) Evidentiary challenges are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

2023Code, § 352; see Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 916–917.) The prejudice that Evidence Code section 352 seeks to avoid is not that which “ ‘ “naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727, 737 .) Rather, “ ‘prejudice’ ” in this context evokes “ ‘ “an emotional bias” ’ ” or “ ‘ “ ‘ “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Nguyen (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1115 .) 8.

2023Code, § 352; see Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 916–917.) The prejudice that Evidence Code section 352 seeks to avoid is not that which “ ‘ “naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727, 737 .) Rather, prejudice in this context evokes “ ‘ “an emotional bias” ’ ” or “ ‘ “ ‘ “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Nguyen (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1115 .) Evidence Code section 352 generally gives a trial court discretion to “ ‘exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially o

2016Evidence is substantially more prejudicial than probative [(under § 352)] if, broadly stated, it poses an intolerable ‘risk to the fairness of the proceedings or the reliability of the outcome’ [citation].” (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724 .) “‘The prejudice which exclusion of evidence under … section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.’ [Citations.] ‘Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors. [Citatio

2015“The prejudice which exclusion of evidence under Evidence Code section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.” (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638 .) “Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of ‘prejudging’ a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors. [Citation.]” (People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888, 912 , overruled on other ground by People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724, fn. 6 .) No such prejudice resulted from the admission of the DNA evidence.

2021Neither was the evidence prejudicial or inflammatory. “‘The prejudice which exclusion of evidence under [] section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.’ (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638 ; People v. Yu (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 358, 377 .) ‘Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 958 .) The evidence in question here was not introduced for suc

2016And although it was damaging to the defense case, it was not prejudicial. “ ‘Prejudice’ does not mean a result which is unfavorable, it means a result which is unfair.” (Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1097, 1109 ; see People v. Yu (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 358, 377 .) “ ‘The prejudice which exclusion of evidence under Evidence Code section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.’ [Citations.] ‘Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basi

2018(People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 475 .) In short, a trial court “ ‘ “is not required to admit evidence that merely makes the victim of a crime look bad.” ’ ” (People v. Loker (2008) 44 Cal.4th 691, 736 ; see People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 523 [rejecting defendant’s attempted introduction of toxicology reports showing drugs and alcohol in victim’s blood where results were irrelevant to issues presented].) Finally, exclusion of this evidence did not interfere with Watts’s constitutional right to present a defense.

2017(People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 475 .) In short, a trial court “ ‘ “is not required to admit evidence that merely makes the victim of a crime look bad.” ’ ” (People v. Loker (2008) 44 Cal.4th 691, 736 ; see People v. Kelly (1992) 30 1 Cal.4th 495, 523 [rejecting defendant’s attempted introduction of toxicology reports showing drugs and alcohol in victim’s blood where results were irrelevant to issues presented].) Finally, exclusion of this evidence did not interfere with Watts’s constitutional right to present a defense.

2025Code, § 352.)” (People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 404 .) “‘“The prejudice that [Evidence Code] section 352 ‘“is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.” [Citations.] “Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of ‘prejudging’ a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors. [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] In other words, evidence should be excluded as unduly prejudicial when it is of such nature as to inflame the emotions of the jury, motivating them to use the information, not

2023(People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 806 .) “Painting a person faithfully is not, of itself, unfair.” (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727, 737 .) “ ‘ “The prejudice which [Evidence Code section 352] is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.’ [Citations.] ‘Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.” ’ ” (Id., at p. 737.) Under Evidence Code section 352, the probative value of uncharged acts evidence offered to pr

2023Code, § 352; see Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 916–917.) The prejudice that Evidence Code section 352 seeks to avoid is not that which “ ‘ “naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727, 737 .) Rather, “ ‘prejudice’ ” in this context evokes “ ‘ “an emotional bias” ’ ” or “ ‘ “ ‘ “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Nguyen (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1115 .) 8.

2023Code, § 352; see Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 916–917.) The prejudice that Evidence Code section 352 seeks to avoid is not that which “ ‘ “naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727, 737 .) Rather, prejudice in this context evokes “ ‘ “an emotional bias” ’ ” or “ ‘ “ ‘ “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Nguyen (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1115 .) Evidence Code section 352 generally gives a trial court discretion to “ ‘exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially o

2024The ability to do so is what makes evidence relevant.” ’ ” (People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 490 .) Instead, “ ‘ “ ‘ “The ‘prejudice’ referred to in . . . section 352 applies to evidence [that] uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and [that] has very little effect on the issues.” ’ ” ’ ” (Scott, at p. 491.) “ ‘[T]he statute uses the word in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.’ ” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 958 .) “In the context of . . . sections 1108 and 1109, a defendant’s p

2023Code] section 352 context, merely because it undermines the opponent’s position or shores up that of the proponent.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 490-491 .) “ ‘Evidence is prejudicial within the meaning of Evidence Code section 352 if it “ ‘uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against a party as an individual’ ” [citation] or if it would cause the jury to “ ‘ “prejudg[e]” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors’ ” [citation].’ [Citation.]” (People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1331 ; see Scott, at p. 491 [“evidence should be excluded as unduly prejudicial

2022He withdraws that argument in his reply brief. 22 (People v. Williams (2008) 43 Cal.4th 584, 633 .) “Prejudice for purposes of Evidence Code section 352 means evidence that tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant with very little effect on issues, not evidence that is probative of a defendant’s guilt.” (People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 842 .) “ ‘ “The prejudice that [Evidence Code] section 352 ‘ “is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.” [Citations.] “Rather, the statute uses the word in

2021“Without doubt, evidence a defendant committed an offense on a separate occasion is inherently prejudicial. [Citations.] But Evidence Code section 352 requires the exclusion of evidence only when its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. ‘Evidence is substantially more prejudicial than probative . . . [only] if, broadly stated, it poses an intolerable “risk to the fairness of the proceedings or the reliability of the outcome” [citation].’ [Citation.]” (People v. Quang Minh Tran (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1040, 1047 .) “In this context, the word ‘prejudice’ is used in th

2015“The prejudice which exclusion of evidence under Evidence Code section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.” (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638 .) “Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of ‘prejudging’ a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors. [Citation.]” (People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888, 912 , overruled on other ground by People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724, fn. 6 .) No such prejudice resulted from the admission of the DNA evidence.

2015(People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638 .) "Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of 'prejudging' a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors." (People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888, 912 .) Because the 29 probative testimony of the percipient witnesses did not prejudice Meraz in that sense, we reject Meraz's argument that the evidence was prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352.

2015(People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1170 .) Rulings under Section 352 will not be overturned absent an abuse of that discretion.

2000(See People v. Cudjo, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 610 [doubts regarding the credibility of a witness do not amount to prejudice under Evidence Code section 352; credibility of witnesses is the province of the jury]; see also People v. Ramos, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1165 [informant testimony is not inherently unreliable].) The court was well within its discretion in denying the motion to exclude this evidence pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, considering the facts before it at the time of the motion. 16.

2009(See People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1070-1071 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 920 P.2d 1337 ] [in the context of Evidence Code section 352, unduly prejudicial evidence is evidence that would evoke an emotional bias against one party]; People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 958 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 122 , 846 P.2d 704 ] [‘prejudice’ as used in Evidence Code section 352 refers to the harm of prejudging on the basis of extraneous factors].)” (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1008 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 997 P.2d 1044 ].) 6.

2009(See People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1070-1071 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 133 , 920 P.2d 1337 ] [in the context of Evidence Code section 352, unduly prejudicial evidence is evidence that would evoke an emotional bias against one party]; People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 958 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 122 , 846 P.2d 704 ] [‘prejudice’ as used in Evidence Code section 352 refers to the harm of prejudging on the basis of extraneous factors].)” (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1008 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 997 P.2d 1044 ].) 6.

2026Evidence Code section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.” [Citations.] “Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of ‘prejudging’ a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.” ’ [Citations.]” 71 (People v. Eubanks (2011) 53 Cal.4th 110, 144 .) “ ‘Trial courts enjoy “ ‘broad discretion’ ” in deciding whether the probability of a substantial danger of prejudice substantially outweighs probative value. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Snyder (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 622, 63

2023Evidence Code section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.” [Citations.] “Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of ‘prejudging’ a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.” ’ [Citations.] The potential for such prejudice is ‘decreased’ when testimony describing the defendant’s uncharged acts is ‘no stronger and no more inflammatory than the testimony concerning the charged offenses.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Eubanks (2011) 53 Cal.4th 110, 144 .) “We apply an abuse of di

2022In applying [Evidence Code] section 352, “prejudicial” is not synonymous with “damaging.” ’ [Citation.]” [Citation.] [¶] The prejudice that [Evidence Code] section 352 “ ‘is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.’ [Citations.] ‘Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.’ ” ’ ” ’ ” (Bryant, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 408 , second–fifth seventh, & eleventh bracketed insertions added.) 12.

2022In applying [Evidence Code] section 352, “prejudicial” is not synonymous with “damaging.” ’ [Citation.]” [Citation.] [¶] The prejudice that [Evidence Code] section 352 “ ‘is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.’ [Citations.] ‘Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.’ ” ’ ” ’ ” (Bryant, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 408 , second–fifth seventh, & eleventh bracketed insertions added.) 12.

2015(People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1121 .) The type of prejudice Evidence Code section 352 seeks to avoid is not the damage to a defense that naturally results from relevant and probative evidence, but rather the tendency to prejudge a person on the basis of extraneous factors.

2015Code, § 352.) For purposes of Evidence Code section 352, evidence is “prejudicial” if it “ ‘ “uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against defendant” ’ without regard to its relevance on material issues.” (People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1121 (Kipp).) That is, “ ‘the statute uses the word [“prejudice”] in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.’ ” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 958 .) “ ‘ “[E]vidence should be excluded as unduly prejudicial when it is of such nature as to inflame the emotions of the jury, motivating them