What is the current state of the law on cross-examination that is repetitive, prejudicial, confusing or of marginal relevance?

The trial court, as defendant recognizes, retains wide latitude to restrict cross-examination that is repetitive, prejudicial, confusing, or of marginal relevance. (People v. Belmontes (1988) 45 Cal.3d 744, 780.) To offend the

Page 20

confrontation clause, the defendant must demonstrate that the prohibited cross-examination would have produced "a significantly different impression of [the witness's] credibility." (Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 680 [89 L.Ed.2d 674, 684] (Van Arsdall).)