Does the exclusion of evidence intended to establish an accused's defense on a minor or subsidiary point interfere with that accused's right to due process law?

"Although the complete exclusion of evidence intended to establish an accused's defense may impair his or her right to due process of law, the exclusion of defense evidence on a minor or subsidiary point does not interfere with that constitutional right." (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 999.) In this case, as set forth above, not only did defendant testify he had not committed any of the crimes with which he was charged but the defense also presented extensive evidence of the circumstances surrounding his departure for Mexico. This evidence included evidence of threats to his children. Specifically, when defense counsel asked whether there were "ever any problems between your childrenany of the children that you had with M. and the children that you had with T[.]," defendant testified, "Lately, yes. They were threatening that they wanted to kill them." The prosecutor did not object to defense counsel's question or move to strike defendant's answer.