The defendant contends that the state’s use of the labels "commonly associated with" and "consistent with" to describe one and two element particles created a danger of unfair prejudice that outweighed the limited probative value of the testimony. The defendant further argues that the trial court abused its discretion in relying on State v. Nieves, 69 Conn. App. 96, 793 A.2d 290, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 930, 798 A.2d 972 (2002), to evaluate the admissibility of this evidence. The state responds that admitting the evidence relating to one and two element particles was a reasonable exercise of the trial court’s discretion and that the trial court properly relied on Nieves in concluding that the probative value of this evidence outweighed the possibility of any undue prejudice.