How has the exclusion of evidence in a sexual assault case been interpreted?

This reasoning greatly exaggerates the potential effect of the excluded evidence. Doe's defensiveness about what she watched on television gave the defense room to argue that she was being untruthful about her exposure to sexually-oriented programs, and one more negative response from her would not have significantly strengthened that argument. The defense was able to call Doe a liar because H. said Doe had watched something on Netflix and Doe said she did not. Any further conflicting testimony by the two about what they had seen on TV would merely have provided cumulative impeachment on the same subject. There is no reasonable probability that the excluded evidence would have affected the outcome. (Evid. Code, 354 [exclusion of evidence is prejudicial only if it causes a miscarriage of justice]; see also People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, 208 [" 'limitation on cross-examination pertaining to the credibility of a witness does not violate the confrontation clause unless a reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of the witness's credibility had the excluded cross-examination been permitted' "].)