The trial court may exclude relevant evidence if the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004) ("Whatever else the term ['testimonial'] covers, it applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial").The U.S. Supreme Court and other courts have said that statements made in formal judicial proceedings are "testimonial" and are therefore subject to the constraints imposed on the use of testimonial hearsay in criminal trials by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

United States v. Newell, 315 F.3d 510, 522-523 (5th Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission of the handwritten notes of defendant's in-house accountant as a state of mind exception to the hearsay rule because (1)....Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement by a declarant setting forth the declarant's perception of the declarant's internal state (including mental states, bodily conditions, feelings, motives, designs, and intentions) at the time the declarant makes the statement.

Fed. R. Evid. 415(b) ("A party who intends to offer evidence under this Rule shall disclose the evidence to the party against whom it will be offered, including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony that is expected to be offered, at least fifteen days before the scheduled date of trial or at such later...In a case in which a party intends to offer evidence of other sexual wrongs under a rule such as Federal Rule of Evidence 415 or a comparable State rule, the offering party may be required to disclose such evidence in advance to the party against whom such evidence will be offered.