Does a defendant have a constitutional right to present a defense based on third party culpability evidence that shows only a motive or opportunity to commit a crime?

Applying such a rule in this case did not impermissibly infringe on defendant's constitutional right to present a defense. (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 414 [" ' "[a]s a general matter, the ordinary rules of evidence do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's right to present a defense" ' "].) Indeed, defendant fails to explain why the relatively routine practice of prohibiting third party culpability evidence that shows only a motive or opportunity to commit a crime somehow falls below a standard of fundamental fairness that it violates a defendant's constitutional rights. (Ibid. [allowing adverse party to impeach the credibility of a witness with prior falsehoods in the same case does not violate a defendant's constitutional rights].)

Page 11