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

In our view, these decisions suggest a continuum on which the right to an opportunity for effective cross-examination is more likely violated as the number of relevant questions that go unanswered increases. (See People v. Sanders,supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 554, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 140.) Here, daughter refused to answer hundreds of questions, of which approximately 150 were substantive. And nothing about her lack of cooperation can be attributed to the trial court, prosecutor, or defense counsel, all of whom took laudable measures to try to make it easier for her to testify. These measures included having daughter testify by closed-circuit television, taking frequent recesses during daughter's testimony and breaking early, allowing daughter to move about, draw, and eat while testifying, and questioning daughter gently and at length on safe but irrelevant topics. The trial court and defense counsel also both encouraged the prosecutor's efforts in urging daughter to cooperate, and defense counsel tried to build rapport with daughter rather than to antagonize her. He treated her kindly, did not badger her or become confrontational, and did nothing to cause her to be reticent except to ask her questionsas he was fully entitled to doabout topics she did not want to discuss.