In a recent SC Supreme Court case, State v. Philllips, the Court explained the analysis used for handling a 403 issue: probative value vs. prejudicial effect.
Rule 403 is one of the most commonly used evidence rules. It states that even if a piece of evidence is relevant, it should be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect:
When deciding whether a piece of evidence should be admitted under 403, courts should conduct separate analyses for the different factors in 403 (i.e., unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading, etc.):
In a footnote, the court does point out that other jurisdictions have allowed for a mixture of unfair prejudice and the other factors:
***This is not legal advice***