What is the test for exclusion of evidence in a sexual assault case?

We agree with the trial court that the proffered evidence was irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. Evidence is irrelevant if it invites speculation: " '[i]f the inference of the existence or nonexistence of a disputed fact which is to be drawn from proffered evidence is based on speculation, conjecture, or surmise, the proffered evidence cannot be considered relevant evidence.' " (People v. Louie (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d Supp. 28, 47.) The inference that defendant sought to present to the jurythat Doe had a motive to fabricate the sexual assault in order to receive immigration assistancewas based on mere speculation. Such conjecture is insufficient to establish error in limiting cross-examination. There was no evidence of prosecutorial inducement for the victim's cooperation. No offer of proof was made that actual assistance or benefits of any sort were actually provided to Doe. (See People v. Dyer (1988) 45 Cal.3d 26, 50 [absence of proof of some agreement furnishing possible bias or motive to testify].) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence.³