Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): as that act is subject to innumerable interpretations.”). Instead of seeking to avoid punishment, a defendant who attempts suicide may, for reasons unrelated to the crime charged, choose to inflict upon himself or herself a punishment more severe than that following a conviction of the charge. State v. Coudette, 7 N.D. 109, 72 N. W. 913, 915 (1897) (rejecting evidence of attempted suicide as corroboration of accomplice testimony based on likelihood that Sioux Indian would commit suicide when incarcerated to avoid confinement regardless of guilt); see also People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737, 312 P.2d 665, 671 (1957) (finding error in exclusion of testimony that offered alternative basis for defendant’s attempted suicide); Meggison v. State, 540 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, in some cases, whether a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error (B) holding circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea where defendant was not indicted for the charge to which he pled guilty but signed a sentencing sheet which established defendant was notified of the charge to which he pled guilty (C) holding that any error that court may have made in admitting inadmissible evidence was harmless because government presented overwhelming evidence establishing defendants guilt (D) holding that admitting evidence of attempted suicide was error when defendant had already pled guilty and attempt was not probative of guilt (E) holding that in conjunction an information with a narrow charge and an abstract of judgment indicating that a defendant pled guilty to that charge prove the precise elements of the offense to which the defendant pled guilty
Output (English): holding that any error that court may have made in admitting inadmissible evidence was harmless because government presented overwhelming evidence establishing defendants guilt