What is the test for "unduly prejudicial evidence" under section 352 of the California Criminal Code?

"'"'Prejudice' as contemplated by ... section 352 is not so sweeping as to include any evidence the opponent finds inconvenient. Evidence is not prejudicial, as that term is used in a section 352 context, merely because it undermines the opponent's position or shores up that of the proponent. The ability to do so is what makes evidence relevant. The code speaks in terms of undue prejudice. Unless the dangers of undue prejudice, confusion, or time consumption '"substantially outweigh"' the probative value of relevant evidence, a section 352 objection should fail."'" (People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 490-491.) 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. In such circumstance, the evidence is unduly prejudicial because of the substantial likelihood the jury will use it for an illegitimate purpose." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 491; see also People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1214 [prejudice set forth in 352 does not refer to prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence, but applies to evidence that uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and has very little effect on the issues].)