Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): as the targets of his violence. The evidence in this case consisted primarily of the testimony of eyewitnesses and Ellis himself. In prior cases where the evidence consists of witness or victim testimony and the testimony of the accused, this court has steadfastly held that the accused’s credibility is critical and, therefore, prior convictions are highly probative. See Smith v. State, 2009 Ark. 453, 343 S.W.3d 319; Benson, 357 Ark. 43, 160 S.W.3d 341; Turner, 325 Ark. 237, 926 S.W.2d 843; Schalski, 322 Ark. 63, 907 S.W.2d 693. The admissibility of prior crimes for impeachment purposes is determined on a case-by-case basis. See Turner, 325 Ark. at 242, 926 S.W.2d at 846. Inquiry into those crimes is not unlimited. See, e.g., Floyd v. State, 278 Ark. 342, 347, 645 S.W.2d 690, 693 (1983) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, however, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that to determine whether a statement was voluntary the court must consider the totality of all the surrounding circumstances  both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation and decide  whether a defendants will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession (B) holding that the probative value of prior felony convictions varies with their nature and number (C) holding that the trial courts error in not allowing defendant to testify on direct examination as to nature and circumstances of prior convictions was not harmless error where credibility of the defendant was critical to the deliberations of the jury (D) holding that when the accused takes the stand the jury can be made aware of the number and nature of prior convictions within the restrictions of rule 609 but that some impermissible details must remain undisclosed (E) holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection
Output (English): holding that the trial courts error in not allowing defendant to testify on direct examination as to nature and circumstances of prior convictions was not harmless error where credibility of the defendant was critical to the deliberations of the jury