Does the trial court abuse its discretion in sustaining the prosecution's objection to cross-examination questions about "To Catch a Predator"?

^8. It is not clear whether Mendez intends to challenge this evidentiary ruling on appeal. In any event, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the prosecution's objection to cross-examination questions about "To Catch a Predator." The court acted within its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude evidence of marginal impeachment value that would entail the undue consumption of time. (People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 455 ["Although we have said that '[c]ross-examination to test the credibility of a prosecuting witness in a criminal case should be given wide latitude' . . . , such latitude does not 'prevent the trial court from imposing reasonable limits on defense counsel's inquiry based on concerns about harassment, confusion of the issues, or relevance' "].)