of the extraneous acts took some time and more than one witness, we conclude the trial court could have reasonably determined it was not so overwhelming as to distract the jury from the charged conduct. C. Conclusion “[T]he plain language of Rule 403 does not allow a trial court to exclude otherwise relevant evidence when that evidence is merely prejudicial.” Pawlak, 420 S.W.3d at 811. “[A]ll evidence against a defendant is, by its very nature, designed to be prejudicial.” Id. The fact that proffered evidence is prejudicial is insufficient to exclude it under Rule 403 because only “unfair” prejudice provides the basis for exclusion of relevant evidence under the rule. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 378 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (op. on reh’g); see also Mechler, 153 S.W.3d at 440 (<HOLDING>). Although we acknowledge the extraneous
recognizing that rule 608b prior bad acts evidence admissible as probative of truthfulness is subject to rule 403 balancing holding that evidence regarding the 510k process and enforcement should be excluded under rule 403 holding that the military judge has considerable discretion to exclude relevant evidence under military rule of evidence 403 holding rule 403 does not exclude all prejudicial evidence the rule focuses only on the danger of unfair prejudice recognizing rule