With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". There was nothing particularly horrific about the admitted evidence to indicate that the jury would have based its verdict on such emotional considerations. See Maurer, 770 P.2d at 984. Moreover, any prejudicial effect the evidence may have had was outweighed by its highly probative value concerning the very elements of the crime charged which Downs disputed-knowledge and intent. See State v. Kell, 2002 UT 106, ¶ 35, 61 P.3d 1019. The fact that she was living in a house where police had observed activity consistent with drug trafficking and executed a search warrant that yielded controlled substances and drug paraphernalia provided context and made her claim of ignorance about the pink baggie in her pocket considerably less believable. See State v. Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 24, 25 P.3d 985 (<HOLDING>); cf. Johnson, 784 P.2d at 1141 ("The

A: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the intervention of biological grandparent under section 102004b
B: holding that the trial court did not exceed its discretion under rule 403 by allowing evidence that provided background for the crime charged
C: holding that the trial court did not exceed its judicial discretion in finding that the damages ordered by the jury were excessive and ordering remittitur in a wrongful death action
D: holding that the military judge has considerable discretion to exclude relevant evidence under military rule of evidence 403
B.