Does the prosecution have to prove knowledge to secure conviction for possession of a concealed dirk or dagger under section 21310?

As appellant admits, knowledge is indeed an element the prosecution must prove to secure a defendant's conviction for possession of a concealed dirk or dagger under section 21310. (See People v. Rubalcava (2000) 23 Cal.4th 322, 332 ["to commit the offense, a defendant must . . . have the requisite guilty mind: that is, the defendant must knowingly and intentionally carry concealed upon his or her person an instrument 'that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon.' ( 12020, subds. (a), (c)(24) [the predecessor to 21310])"].) Nonetheless, appellant, who did not object to admission of this evidence below, now contends it should have been excluded under Evidence Code section 352 because its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact. In particular, he contends that the evidence "upgraded [his] profile - as a potentially dangerous person - in the jury's eyes exponentially," and that the "knowledge element" of section 21310 could have been easily established by stipulation or by brief testimony from the officer involved in the prior incident that he possessed a similar knife (without mention that he was arrested in possession of three knives).