How have courts dealt with allegations of error in excluding evidence in a sexual assault case?

Even if the court did err in excluding the evidence, which it did not, the error would not have been prejudicial. Because defendant's constitutional rights were not implicated, we review allegations of error under the "reasonable probability" standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836. (People v. Marks, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 227.) That is, we ask whether it is "reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached in the absence of the error." (People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 837.) We conclude it is not.