the Johnston Soccer Club for illegal activity because this topic was not broached on direct examination. See Walsh, 731 A.2d at 698 (defense not allowed to raise collateral issues to undermine witness’s credibility). Here the justice allowed the defense to establish that the victim and defendant frequented the club socially. However, because the prosecution did not question Sergeant Doherty about the Johnston Soccer Club, the trial justice did not abuse his discretion when he limited the defense’s cross-examination questions about Rocchio’s alleged activities at the club. Similarly, the trial justice did not abuse his discretion when he limited the defense’s inquiry on cross-examination into whether the victim gambled or used drugs with the money he borrowed. See Cote, 691 A.2d at 543 (<HOLDING>). In the case at bar, Feole tried to tarnish
holding that trial justice has wide discretion to determine relevancy of evidence holding that the court has wide discretion in fashioning remedies to make victims of discrimination whole holding that trial court has wide discretion in determining sufficiency of foundation for opinion testimony recognizing that wide discretion in imposition of sentence reposes in the trial judge holding that a district court has wide discretion to modify an injunction based on changed circumstances or new facts