the jury that the children were too knowledgeable about sex for their age and that the Defendant was the one who expose them to this. Defendant wanted to show motive as to why the children would lie, based on the fact the older child was caught engaged in sexual acts with other boys and had a history of lying whenever she was in trouble. The defense theory was that the older child had influence her little sister and was able to get her to lie for her whenever, she was in trouble. Had Defendant been allowed to cross-exami t guarantees a defendant the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. U.S. Const, amend. VI. The right to confrontation includes the right to conduct reasonable cross-examination. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-16, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Cross-examination is the “principal means by
holding that the constitutional right to crossexamination must be satisfied first before the court can exercise its discretion in limiting the scope or extent of crossexamination holding that if crossexamination aims to reveal the motive bias or prejudice of a witness it ought to be allowed holding that defendants right to crossexamine a witness for bias or motivation to lie is not grounds for reversal where the jury had enough information despite the limits placed on otherwise permitted crossexamination to assess the defense theory of bias or improper motive holding that limitation on scope and breadth of crossexamination did not significantly curtail effectiveness of witness crossexamination because crossexamination was lengthy and extensive recognizing that extensive crossexamination of the witness alone is not enough if the crossexamination permitted did not include questions on the issue constitutionally required