Can a police officer be cross-examined in a criminal case for the purpose of challenging evidence that has been ruled inadmissible?

issue because the trial court never ruled whether the proposed cross-examination would " 'open the door' " to challenged other crimes evidence and, thus, the issue was not preserved for appeal. In People v. Marghzar (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1129, 1136-1137, where defendant was charged with presenting a false or fraudulent insurance claim about an allegedly stolen car with intent to defraud, the court repeatedly admonished and instructed police officer witnesses outside the presence of the jury as to how to handle questions regarding another investigation that defense counsel contended was irrelevant, and conducted "numerous sidebar[s]" on the subject. The witnesses "exhibited caution and strict adherence to the court's admonition" as to how far they could go in answering questions. The trial court warned defense counsel that he might be opening the door by continually questioning witnesses as to the contents of various reports, and the questions could not be answered accurately without referring to unrelated criminal activity. "Only after defense counsel acknowledged the risk in the sidebar conference," and stated his position that "[i]f I ask something that opens the door, that's what is going to happen[,] [t]he door is open. . . . [] . . . then they are entitled to pursue that," did the court admit the evidence. (Id. at pp. 1136-1137, fn. 2.) Marghzar is thus nothing like this case, where the prosecutor made a sudden request for judicial notice, and there was no admonition or warning by the court. Finally, People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 591-592, is also factually inapposite; when defense counsel there cross-examined a police officer about a confession that had previously been ruled inadmissible, the defendant opened the door for the prosecution to elicit the balance of the confession pursuant to section 356 and the rule of completeness.