latitude should be allowed the accused in showing any fact which would tend to establish ill-feeling, bias, motive and animus upon the part of any witness testifying against him’ ... when the purpose of cross-examination is to bring out facts which will give to the jury the attitude, motive and interest which might affect the credibility of the witness ...." (citations omitted)); see also Ho v. State, 171 S.W.3d 295, 304 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d) (explaining that cross-examination may be limited to avoid cumulative or collateral evidence if the witness’s possible bias and motive are already clear and the accused has otherwise been afforded an opportunity for a thorough cross-examination). 6 . Compare Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 179 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (<HOLDING>), and Jones v. State, No. 14-06-00292-CR, 2008
holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue holding that a proffer of evidence to established a witnesss bias and motive to lie did not preserve a confrontation clause argument because a defendant must specifically articulate that the confrontation clause demands admission of proffered evidence to preserve error on this ground holding that a proffer of evidence for purposes of credibility made during a hearing under rule 412 of the texas rules of evidence did not preserve a confrontation clause argument for appeal because such a proffer did not bring the judges attention to the appropriate evidence rule or statute holding that duress evidence was properly excluded where defendant failed to proffer evidence on each element of the defense