rules excluding evidence from criminal trials.” Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324, 126 S.Ct. 1727, 1731, 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006). Also, “[t]he trial court maintains broad discretion to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination to avoid harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, endangering the witness, and the injection of cumulative or collateral evidence.” Henley v. State, 493 S.W.3d at 95; Tex. R. Evid. 101(d); Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326, 126 S.Ct. at 1732. The evidence rules should not, however, infringe upon defendant’s ability to present a complete defense. Holmes, 547 U.S. at 324, 126 S.Ct. at 1731; see Smith v. State, 236 S.W.3d 282, 292 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd); see e.g., Coronado v. State, 351 S.W.3d 315, 324-31 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (<HOLDING>); compare with Thomas v. State, 837 S.W.2d 106,
holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse warranted reversal where the childs otherwise uncorroborated testimony was the sole basis for conviction and the hearsay augmented the childs testimony with additional detail in certain areas holding that where the trial court did not explicitly state reasons for rejecting defendants request for probation in lieu of conviction under vi code ann tit 5  3711c the reasons can be reasonably ascertained from the record holding harmless the improper admission of a social workers hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse where the credibility of the childs testimony was supported by other witnesses holding that error in admission of videotape was harmless because it was cumulative of childs properly admitted live testimony holding admission of childs written interrogatories in lieu of livetestimony under tex code crim proc ann art 38071  2 was unconstitutional