Does the court erred by disallowing a line of cross-examination of the witness who pretended to be Ling in the recorded phone conversations?

Counsel also suggested we review whether the court erred by disallowing a proposed line of cross-examination of the witness who had pretended to be Ling in the recorded phone conversations. Defendant wanted to examine the witness about the amounts of money Perverted Justice had been paid by the television program known as "Dateline" for the right to televise the stings set up by Perverted Justice. The court sustained an Evidence Code section 352 objection, stating: "[T]here's virtually no probative value. It's minimal at best. Very little probative value. It's hard to see how this would affect this very low-level person at Perverted Justice, and I think that it is very prejudicial because it suggests that the whole organization, all their operations could be could be corrupt." "Rulings under Evidence Code section 352 are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, and a trial court's determination `will not be overturned on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of that discretion, upon a showing that the trial court's decision was palpably arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd, and resulted in injury sufficiently grave as to amount to a miscarriage of justice.'" (People v. Lamb (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 575, 582.) Here, the court's ruling was not arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd. Indeed, it was manifestly reasonable. There was no error.