You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

must be punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year or involve dishonesty or false statement; and that the trial judge must determine, in his discretion, that the danger of unfair prejudice by use of the evidence of conviction does not substantially outweigh its probative value. The defendant urges that Montgomery permits the use of felonies or infamous crimes for impeachment purposes, but was not intended to al low the admission of misdemeanor convictions. This contention is- supported by cases in other districts in this State which appear to assume without discussion that even under Montgomery only felonies or infamous crimes are admissible. See People v. Partee (1974), 17 Ill.App.3d 166, 308 N.E.2d 18, and People v. Cassman (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 301, 293 N.E.2d 710 (<HOLDING>), and People v. Cox (1972), 8 Ill.App.3d 1033,
Holding statements: (A) holding that where defendant stipulates to prior felony conviction evidence of the nature of the prior crime is irrelevant and should be excluded (B) holding that larceny being a felony is an infamous crime (C) holding that conviction of dueling was not an infamous crime under former state constitutional provision disenfranchising persons convicted of an infamous crime but concluding that the right to hold public office was separate from the right of suffrage (D) holding that manslaughter was an infamous crime under a divorce statute because it was a felony (E) holding without discussion of montgomery that a defendant can only be impeached by evidence of a conviction of a prior felony or infamous crime
Output:
holding that where defendant stipulates to prior felony conviction evidence of the nature of the prior crime is irrelevant and should be excluded