Does the testimony of a detective in the case of Jose Rodriguez have to be excluded as unduly prejudicial?

Nor was any the detective's testimony unduly prejudicial in the sense that it would have evoked an emotional bias against Rodriguez as an individual or would have caused the jury to prejudge him based on extraneous factors. (People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 475.) "[E]vidence 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. In such a circumstance, the evidence is unduly prejudicial because of the substantial likelihood the jury will use it for an illegitimate purpose." (Vorse v. Sarasy (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 998, 1009.)