State fearing that the clerical error would be corrected if he did not. A defendant’s right to cross-examine a witness concerning possible biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives is protected by both the federal and state constitutions. People v. Ramey, 152 Ill. 2d 41, 67, 604 N.E.2d 275 (1992); U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Ill. Const., 1970, art. I, § 8; Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347, 94 S. Ct. 1105 (1974). The exposure of “a witness’ motivation in testifying is a proper and important , function of the constitutionally protected right of the cross-examination. The widest latitude should be given the defense on cross-examination when trying to establish a witness’ bias or motive.” Ramey, 152 Ill. 2d at 67; People v. Furby, 228 Ill. App. 3d 1, 4, 591 N.E.2d 533 (1992) (<HOLDING>). It is also well established that a witness’
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 criminal defendants right to testify is subject to crossexamination holding that court did not prejudice defendant by limiting his counsel to preestablished limitations on inter alia the scope of crossexamination recognizing that extensive crossexamination of the witness alone is not enough if the crossexamination permitted did not include questions on the issue constitutionally required 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