What is the test for denying a motion to reopen a case to consider whether a prosecution witness perjured themselves?

This case embodies many of the same factual features that led the court in People v. Meza (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 988, to find that the trial court acted well within its discretion in denying appellant's motion to reopen the proceedings. In Meza, the trial court refused to reopen the case after final argument, but before the case had been submitted to the jury, to allow testimony that a prosecution witness had admitted to a prospective witness that she had perjured herself in order to obtain revenge on the defendant. (Id. at p. 995.) No abuse of discretion was found in refusing to reopen the case to consider whether this prosecution witness had given false testimony. The court noted that the trial testimony given by the prosecution witness was contradicted by other evidence; she had admitted facts weakening her credibility, including suggesting she wished to retaliate against the defendant; and "the jury in this case had before it sufficient information concerning [the witness'] veracity adequately to pass upon the weight to be accorded her testimony." (Id. at pp. 995-996.)