detectives' testimony in this case was properly admitted to provide context for the detectives' interrogation tactics and investigative decisions, it is unnecessary for us to reach the question of whether opening statements can open the door to otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence. II. Standard of Review 118 A trial court enjoys broad latitude to determine the admissibility of evi dence. Kaufman v. People, 202 P.3d 542, 553 (Colo.2009). Hence, we grant considerable deference to the trial court's determinations and review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Dale v. Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co., 948 P.2d 545, 556 (Colo.1997). A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is "manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or unfair," Freedom Colo. Info., Inc. v. El Paso Cnty 8) (<HOLDING>); People v. Hall, 107 P.3d 1073, 1078-79
holding that the trial court on remand erred when it adopted a new theory of damages contrary to the order of the court of appeals holding that the circuit court properly allowed the victims schoolteacher to testify as to the victims general reputation for truthfulness holding that trial court did not commit error when it allowed state to reopen evidence to establish venue holding that the trial court erred when it allowed a social worker to state that a victim was telling the truth when describing various incidents of abuse holding that the trial court erred when it allowed an investigating officer to expressly state on multiple occasions that victims were credible in their accusations