What are the implications of a trial court's ruling that a defendant's right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him?

We reject appellant's claim that the trial court's ruling violated his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him. "'[A] trial court may restrict cross-examination on the basis of the well-established principles of Evidence Code section 352, i.e., probative value versus undue prejudice. [Citation.] There is no Sixth Amendment violation at all unless the prohibited cross-examination might reasonably have produced a significantly different impression of credibility.' [Citations.]" (People v. Ardoin (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 102, 119.) Cross-examination of Moss about her white supremacist tattoo and "white power issues" would not "'reasonably have produced a significantly different impression of [her] credibility.'" (Ibid.)

We also reject appellant's claim that the trial court's ruling denied him a fair trial in violation of due process. "Ordinarily, proper application of the statutory rules of evidence does not impermissibly infringe upon a defendant's due process rights. [Citations.]" (People v. Ardoin, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 119.)