How have courts treated the use of "weird" in cross-examining a defense witness as to his failure to come forward at an earlier date?

Although the prosecutor's use of "weird" in the first question was argumentative, it did not result in an answer from the witness. The second question was proper. "There is nothing inherently improper about cross-examining a defense witness as to his failure to come forward at an earlier date. In fact, the information discovered during this type of questioning may well aid the trier of fact in its effort to determine whether the testimony is an accurate reflection of the truth or a recent fabrication." (People v. Ratliff (1987) 189

Page 10