What is the current state of the law on cross-examination in a sexual assault case?

and to whatever extent, the defendant might wish.' [Citation.]" (Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 679.) "[N]ot every restriction on a defendant's desired method of cross-examination is a constitutional violation." (People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 946.) "[U]nless the defendant can show that the prohibited cross-examination would have produced 'a significantly different impression of [the witnesses'] credibility' [citation], the trial court's exercise of its discretion in this regard does not violate the Sixth Amendment. [Citation.]" (Ibid.) Even though the victim's credibility was at issue, given the corroborating evidence we cannot conclude there is a reasonable probability that evidence of the victim's convictions would have produced a different outcome. Accordingly, the trial court's evidentiary rulings did not deprive defendant of his due process right to present a complete defense or of his right to confront his accuser.