This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
A judge can keep out evidence even when it's relevant to the case. This happens when the evidence would cause more harm than good. For example, if evidence might make the jury angry or emotional in a way that has nothing to do with the actual facts, the judge can block it.
The judge also looks at whether evidence might confuse the jury or lead them down the wrong path. If evidence is likely to distract from the real issues in the case, it can be left out even if it's technically relevant.
This rule also lets judges cut down on evidence that just wastes time. If a lawyer wants to show the same point over and over with different pieces of evidence, the judge can say no to avoid dragging out the trial. The goal is to keep trials fair and focused, not to let one side pile up unnecessary evidence just to overwhelm the other side or the jury.
