Opinion ID: 2046018
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General principles and scope of review.

Text: The inquiry whether evidence is admissible under our Iowa rules of evidence 402 and 403 involves a two-step inquiry: (1) is the evidence relevant? and (2) if so, is its probative value substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice or confusion? Evidence is relevant if it has a tendency to make a consequential fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Iowa R. Evid. 401; McClure v. Walgreen Co., 613 N.W.2d 225, 235 (Iowa 2000). Even relevant evidence, however, is not admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Iowa R. Evid. 403. Unfair prejudice arises when the evidence prompts the jury to make a decision on an improper basis.... Waits v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 572 N.W.2d 565, 569 (Iowa 1997). We review a district court's decision concerning the admission of relevant evidence for an abuse of discretion. See McClure, 613 N.W.2d at 235. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court exercised [its] discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Waits, 572 N.W.2d at 569 (quoting State v. Maghee, 573 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 1997)). A ground or reason is untenable when it is not supported by substantial evidence or when it is based on an erroneous application of the law. See id. Not every erroneous admission of irrelevant evidence requires reversal. McClure, 613 N.W.2d at 235. Reversal is only warranted when a substantial right of the party is affected. Id. (quoting Iowa R. Evid. 103(a)). Although a presumption of prejudice arises when the district court has received irrelevant evidence over a proper objection, the presumption is not sufficient to require reversal if the record shows a lack of prejudice. Id.