or impose a less onerous remedy when he refused to answer the state’s questions. He contends that the trial court’s decision rests on a misapprehension of the law. See State v. Rogers, 330 Or 282, 310-11, 4 P3d 1261 (2000) (addressing comparable problem). The premise of defendant’s argument is correct. In Oregon, trial courts have broad discretion to control the order and presentation of evidence. See OEC 611 (stating that courts shall exercise reasonable control over order and presentation of evidence); Rogers, 330 Or at 300 (recognizing that principle). That includes the discretion to strike the testimony of a witness who refuses to answer questions on cross-examination or to impose a less onerous sanction when appropriate. See State v. Mende, 304 Or 18, 21, 741 P2d 496 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Although defendant’s premise is correct, he
holding that the trial court properly disregarded a witnesss ex parte affidavit and his direct testimony when the witness declined to submit to crossexamination holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion holding that although not required to do so trial court had discretion to strike defendants affidavit when he refused to submit to crossexamination holding that sentencing court did not violate defendants due process rights when it reasonably refused to recall a witness for crossexamination holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to strike witnesss testimony on direct examination when witness asserted fifth amendment on collateral matters on crossexamination particularly when witness was required to invoke privilege in presence of jury