Does the Attorney General have the authority to reverse a judgment for the erroneous exclusion of evidence?

On appeal, we may not reverse a judgment for the erroneous exclusion of evidence unless [t]he substance, purpose, and relevance of the excluded [51 Cal.4th 869] evidence was made known to the court by the questions asked, an offer of proof, or by any other means. (Evid.Code, 354.) As the Attorney General observes, defendant made no offer of proof or attempted otherwise to advise the court of the substance and purpose of the testimony he sought to elicit. He thus does not show entitlement to relief. We reach the same conclusion regarding defendant's constitutional claims. The ordinary application of state evidentiary law does not, as a general matter, implicate the United States Constitution. ( People v. Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 10351036

[99 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 5 P.3d 68]

.) Here, the trial court's ruling did not foreclose defendant from presenting a defense, but merely rejected certain evidence concerning the defense. ( People v. Bradford, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1325, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259.) The trial court's rulings, therefore, did not infringe defendant's constitutional rights.