How have courts dealt with allegations of abuse of discretion in a sexual assault case?

^10. Because we conclude there was no abuse of discretion, we find it unnecessary to discuss why the admission of the text message conversations did not result in a miscarriage of justice. But we do note there is no basis for defendant's suggestion that the trial court's Evidence Code section 352 ruling constitutes federal constitutional error. (People v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197, 227 ["[A]pplication of ordinary rules of evidence like Evidence Code section 352 does not implicate the federal Constitution . . ."].)

^11. Defendant's opening brief can also be read to contend the prosecution committed Griffin error by arguing the defense failed to call logical witnesses. The prosecution's argument in this respect was proper, and we do not discuss it further. (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1333 ["Although a prosecutor is forbidden to comment either directly or indirectly, on the defendant's failure to testify in his defense, the prosecutor may comment on the state of the evidence, or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses"], internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)