A more thorough explanation:

Probative value refers to the likelihood of evidence to prove a relevant fact in a case. When admitting evidence, it must be relevant and tend to make the fact in issue more or less likely to happen, even if the probability is slight. However, there are exceptions to admitting relevant evidence. If the probative value of evidence is outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, then the evidence may be excluded.

For example, evidence that is unfairly prejudicial may cause the jury to sympathize or discriminate against one party, even if it is not necessary to prove a fact. In such cases, the court may limit the scope or topic of evidence under its instruction.

There are specific evidence rules that take probative value into account when considering whether to admit evidence or not. These include:

Character evidence is used to describe an individual's disposition or the way an individual is anticipated to act under certain circumstances. If the character is at issue, such as in cases of slander or defamation, it is admissible as direct evidence and a material element of the case. However, if the character is circumstantial evidence, which can only infer conduct conforming with alleged character, it is usually not admissible.

In criminal cases, defendants can introduce evidence of character traits that are pertinent to the crime at issue by the reputation or opinion testimony of witnesses. Once the defendant opens the door to character evidence, prosecutors can use character evidence to rebut.

There are three ways to prove character: specific acts, opinion, and reputation testimony. The admissible character evidence is usually opinion or reputation testimony.

Specific acts to prove that a person's action conforms with a character trait are usually not admissible. However, a defendant's prior acts of sexual assault or child molestation are admissible in a case where they are accused of similar conduct.

Specific acts with character purposes are usually not admissible to show the defendant's propensity for committing the crime. However, if acts without character purpose are relevant to material issues of a defendant's motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity, or common scheme or plan, they are admissible. Before admitting, the court should weigh the act's probative value. If it is prejudicial, the court can exclude it. If it is admitted, the court still needs to give instructions to the jury relating to the specific purpose of the evidence.

Evidence of prior convictions that passed more than ten years since the later of the witness's conviction or release from confinement is usually not admissible to attack a witness's character for truthfulness, unless its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect, and the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to use it.

Evidence of prior convictions that passed less than ten years may be admitted depending on the subject and type of conviction. All crimes involving dishonesty or false statements of a witness are always admissible to impeach that witness, and the judge has no discretion to exclude it. If the crime doesn't involve dishonesty, there are three situations:

• If it is not a felony, it is not admissible.
• If it is a felony and the witness is the criminal defendant, it is not admissible unless its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.
• If it is a felony but the witness is not the criminal defendant, it is admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

However, sex crimes generally cannot be used to impeach, especially when the danger of unfair prejudice is high. Annulled or pardoned convictions because of innocence also cannot be admitted.

Specific acts, as instances of misconduct, which are probative of a witness's truthfulness or untruthfulness, can be used in good faith in cross-examination. Its admissibility is at the court's discretion, but if it's offered to contradict the defendant's testimony, it is admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.