What is the test for admitting rebuttal evidence in a criminal case?

" 'A defendant who takes the stand to testify in his own behalf waives the privilege against self-incrimination to the extent of the scope of relevant cross-examination. [Citations.] "It matters not that the defendant's answer on cross-examination might tend to establish his guilt of a collateral offense for which he could still be prosecuted." ' [Citations.] 'None of [the] fundamental principles [underlying the rule precluding the prosecution from cross-examining a testifying defendant beyond the scope of direct examination, upon the case generally] . . . imply that when a defendant voluntarily testifies in his own defense the People may not fully amplify his testimony by inquiring into the facts and circumstances surrounding his assertions, or by introducing evidence through cross-examination which explains or refutes his statements or the inferences which may necessarily be drawn from them.' [Citations.]" (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 72, bracketed text in original.)

"Rebuttal evidence is relevant and thus admissible if it 'tend[s] to disprove a fact of consequence on which the defendant has introduced evidence.' [Citation.] The trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence in rebuttal. [Citation.]" (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 936.) We review the trial court's admission of rebuttal evidence for an abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 937.)