testified about the assault and Solomon’s resulting fear. Solomon’s grandmother, father, and close friend all testified that Solomon’s behavior changed dramatically following the assault. R.O.A., VI at 177, 187-89, 201-02. These witnesses all testified that whereas Solomon was outgoing and upbeat prior to the assault, after the assault he became fearful and reclusive (thus supporting Solomon’s trial theory that he carried the firearm for self-defense, not for drug trafficking purposes). Thus, on this record, there is simply no indication that the photographs materially advanced Solomon’s defense. Indeed, in light of our previous discussion regarding the cumulative nature of the photographs, the lack of materiality is obvious. See Young v. Workman, 383 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the district court did not abuse its
holding the exclusion of cumulative evidence was not prejudicial error recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense holding that the exclusion of cumulative evidence did not materially impact defendants right to present a defense holding no abuse of discretion in trial courts exclusion of evidence where evidence was cumulative holding that the constitutional right to present a defense is not violated by the exclusion of a defendants proffered evidence where he is otherwise given the opportunity to present his defense and crossexamine the key prosecution witnesses