What is the test for the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion?

We review any ruling on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1113, disapproved on another point in People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 151.) "'Relevant evidence' means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of an action." (Evid. Code, 210.) But relevant evidence should be excluded if the trial court, in its discretion, determines that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will either be unduly time consuming or create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. (Evid. Code, 352.) In this context, unduly prejudicial evidence is evidence that evokes an emotional bias against the defendant without regard to its relevance to material issues. (People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1121.)