Does the exclusion of third party culpability evidence in a criminal case violate a defendant's right to present a defense?

After disposing of the issue under state law, Prince then rejected defendant's contention that the exclusion of the third party guilt evidence nonetheless violated his federal constitutional rights. It reasoned, without the need for elaboration, that " '[t]here was no error under state law,' " the court observed, " 'and we have long observed that, "[a]s a general matter, the ordinary rules of evidence do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's [state or federal constitutional] right to present a defense." ' " (Prince, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1243; see also People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1325 [exclusion of third party culpability evidence did not violate due process or deprive defendant of the opportunity to present a defense].)