See State v. MacManus, 130 N.H. 256, 259, 536 A.2d 203, 205 (1987). We note, moreover, that the trial court made efforts to ameliorate the denial of immunity to Blackmer by granting, with the State’s consent, the defendant’s motion in limine to preclude Boulerisse from testifying on several issues. Cf. id. at 259-60, 563 A.2d at 205 (noting the trial court’s and State’s efforts concerning the exclusion of evidence to assure defendant a fair trial). The defendant also sought Blackmer’s testimony to impeach Boulerisse. The record reflects that there were sufficient alternative means to impeach Boulerisse through cross-examination about her various inconsistent statements regarding the defendant’s involvement with Blackmer’s drug endeavors. Cf. Roy, 140 N.H. at 482, 668 A.2d at 44 (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that the trial court
recognizing the importance of the employers knowledge of the disability holding that it was permissible for the state to test the credibility of appellants trial testimony by crossexamination holding that the need to impeach credibility correspondingly increases as the importance of the witness credibility and testimony escalates holding that limitation on scope and breadth of crossexamination did not significantly curtail effectiveness of witness crossexamination because crossexamination was lengthy and extensive recognizing the importance of crossexamination in casting doubt on credibility