Does the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they asserted to promote?

the Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote, well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury. [Citations.] Plainly referring to rules of this type, we have stated that the Constitution permits judges 'to exclude evidence that is "repetitive . . . , only marginally relevant" or poses an undue risk of "harassment, prejudice, [or] confusion of the issues." ' " (Id. at pp. 326-327; People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1259.)