or excluded certain evidence. The City argues that the probative value of certain evidence admitted was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and that the court erred in admitting the evidence. See SCRA 1986, 11-403. The trial court is vested with a great deal of discretion in applying Rule 403, and we will reverse the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence, only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion. Mac Tyres, Inc. v. Vigil, 92 N.M. 446, 448, 589 P.2d 1037, 1039 (1979). The trial court abuses its discretion when the movant can demonstrate that the court’s rulings were clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. See Three Rivers Land Co. v. Maddoux, 9.8 N.M. 690, 694, 652 P.2d 240, 244 (1982) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds, Universal Life
holding a trial courts decision involving withdrawal or discharge of counsel is subject to review for abuse of discretion recognizing that an appellate court reviews a trial courts decision whether or not to grant equitable relief only for an abuse of discretion holding that abuse of discretion standard applicable to review of court acting in equitable capacity requires trial courts decision to be contrary to logic and reason holding that court reviews trial courts decision to release a defendant for abuse of discretion holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion