What is the test for exclusion of evidence in a domestic violence case?

the court discretion to exclude evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury." ( 352.) Prejudice within the meaning of section 352 is not synonymous with damaging. (People v. Rucker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1119.) It refers to evidence that "'"uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against [the] defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues."'" (Ibid.) "Relevant factors in determining prejudice include whether the prior acts of domestic violence were more inflammatory than the charged conduct, the possibility the jury might confuse the prior acts with the charged acts, how recent were the prior acts, and whether the defendant had already been convicted and punished for the prior offense(s)." (Ibid.)

"'"The principal factor affecting the probative value of an uncharged act is its similarity to the charged offense."' [Citation.] Section 1109 was intended to make admissible a prior incident 'similar in character to the charged domestic violence crime, and which was committed against the victim of the charged crime or another similarly situated person.' [Citation.] Thus, the statute reflects the legislative judgment that in domestic violence cases, as in sex crimes, similar prior offenses are 'uniquely probative' of guilt in a later accusation." (People v. Johnson (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 520, 531-532.)