or relevant evidence that is vital to his defense, or (2) the trial court’s ruling erroneously excludes evidence that “forms such a vital portion of the case that exclusion effectively precludes the defendant from presenting a defense.” Id. at 659-62, 665; see also Wiley v. State, 74 S.W.3d 399, 405 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). Here, appellant does not assert the unconstitutionality of a rule of evidence but instead complains about the limitations the trial court placed on his cross-examination of Martin regarding CPS investigations concerning her children. Appellant suggests that the specifics of the investigations he was attempting to elicit would have bolstered his assertion that because he was aware of the alleged abuse and investigations and had threatened to further re m.App.2009) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, even if the argument had been
recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense recognizing defendants right to due process includes the right to present a defense by crossexamining witnesses holding that a criminal defendant has a due process right to present evidence and that exclusion of evidence for a defense discovery violation should be imposed only if no other remedy suffices holding that the sixth amendment right to present a meaningful defense does not entitle a defendant to present evidence on a question of law holding that due process right to present a defense is subject to forfeiture if not properly asserted in the trial court