Does the exclusion of certain interview questions from a witness record invalid a defendant's constitutional claim?

The application of ordinary rules of evidence does not infringe on defendant's constitutional rights unless it prevents him from presenting relevant evidence of significant probative value. (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 998-999.) We conclude the omitted interview questions were not of significant probative value, thus defendant's constitutional claims must fail. Moreover, defense counsel did not use the questions that were admitted to argue that Doe had been led into a false statement. Those were questions the trial court found more suggestive than the questions that were excluded. "[A]s long as the excluded evidence would not have produced a ' " 'significantly different impression' " ' of the witness's credibility, the confrontation

Page 11

clause and related constitutional guarantees do not limit the trial court's discretion in this regard." (People v. Contreras, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 152.) The omitted questions, which were less suggestive than the admitted questions, would not have given a different impression of Doe's credibility. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence.