In what circumstances will the trial court err with regard to rulings that allow defense counsel to introduce or enlarge topics such as sexual activity with another woman?

In the present case, we have concluded that the trial court did not err with regard to any of these challenged rulings. Moreover, it does not appear that, had the trial court permitted the inquiries that defense counsel sought to make, the resulting testimony would have produced evidence of significant probative value to the defense. With regard to several of the topics that defense counsel sought to introduce or enlarge, counsel obtained equivalent testimony from witnesses through other, properly phrased questions. Although defense counsel was not permitted to develop such topics as Treto's earlier participation in pool tournaments and his apparent relationship with another woman, defendant's offers of proof simply did not indicate that relevant evidence of significant probative value would be forthcoming. (See People v. Babbitt, supra, 45 Cal.3d 660, 685, 248 Cal.Rptr. 69, 755 P.2d 253.) It is not reasonably probable that defendant would have obtained a more favorable verdict had defense counsel been permitted to elicit testimony on these topics.