Is a defendant's right to cross-examine a witness on cross-examination permissible?

"As a general matter, a defendant is entitled to explore whether a witness has been offered any inducements or expects any benefits for his or her testimony, as such evidence is suggestive of bias." (People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 544.) However, a defendant's "right to cross-examination is not a matter of 'absolute right.' Although . . . '[c]ross-examination to test the credibility of a prosecuting witness in a criminal case should be given wide latitude' [citation], 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' [citation]. Moreover, reliance on Evidence Code section 352 to exclude evidence of marginal impeachment value that would entail the undue consumption of time generally does not contravene a defendant's constitutional rights to confrontation and cross-examination." (Id. at p. 545.)

"The trial court retains wide latitude to restrict repetitive, prejudicial, confusing, or marginally relevant cross-examination. Unless the defendant can show that the prohibited cross-examination would have created a significantly different impression of the witness's credibility, the trial court's exercise of discretion to restrict cross-examination does not violate the constitutional right of confrontation." (People v.

Page 15

Snchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 450-451 [citing, among other cases, Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 680].)