This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
Even if evidence is relevant to a case, a judge can still keep it out if it causes more harm than good. This happens when the evidence might unfairly sway the jury's emotions, confuse the main issues in the case, or mislead the jury about what really matters.
A judge can also block evidence if it would waste time or simply repeat what the jury has already heard. For example, if a lawyer wants to show ten photos that all prove the same point, the judge might only allow one or two, since more photos would not add much value but would slow things down.
The key idea is balance. The judge weighs how much the evidence actually helps prove something against the risk that it could unfairly hurt one side, confuse the jury, or drag out the trial. If that risk clearly outweighs the benefit, the judge can leave the evidence out, even though it is technically relevant to the case.
