court has the discretion to order depositions in criminal cases if the information may affect the outcome of the trial. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1917 (Cum. Supp. 1994). See, also, State v. Roenfeldt, 241 Neb. 30, 486 N.W.2d 197 (1992), where the appellant contended he should have been allowed to depose the sexual assault victim’s grade school principal about an incident involving a missing watch and the victim’s untruthfulness regarding the disappearance of the watch. The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of the discovery plan, stating: “This line of discovery not only is clearly collateral to the criminal behavior at hand, but does nothing to exculpate the appellant.” Id. at 38, 486 N.W.2d at 203. See, also, State v. Tuttle, 238 Neb. 827, 472 N.W.2d 712 (1991) (<HOLDING>). In order to conclude that the district court
holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion holding that unless discovery is granted as a matter of statute court rule or the constitution discovery is within the discretion of the trial court whose ruling will be upheld on appeal absent an abuse of discretion holding that a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion