784 P.2d 1185, 1141 (Utah 1989); cf. State v. Moore, 788 P.2d 525, 527 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (listing three categories of highly prejudicial evidence as recognized by the Utah Supreme Court: "(1) gruesome photos of a homicide scene; (2) a rape victim's past sexual activities with someone other than the accused; and (8) statistical matters not susceptible to quantitative analysis such as witness veracity." (citations omitted)). Compare e.g., State v. Jaeger, 1999 UT 1, 119, 973 P.2d 404 (concluding that records containing the victim's statements that she previously had attempted suicide were "not the type of evidence that has an unusual propensity to unfairly prejudice, inflame, or mislead the jury"), Moore, 788 P.2d at 527 (same, for pornographic materials), and Johnson, 784 P.2d at 1141 (<HOLDING>), with, e.g., State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201,
holding that a bloodstained police uniform was not highly prejudicial holding refusal to give pretext instruction was error but not prejudicial holding that erroneous admission of improper and prejudicial evidence did not require reversal because the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty against the defendant even without the prejudicial testimony holding the exclusion of cumulative evidence was not prejudicial error holding that failure to join necessary party was prejudicial