What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless".

Opinion:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen J. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 78-5175.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 18, 1978.
Thomas E. Jackson, Kenneth R. Sasse and Stephen Gleit, Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellant.
James K. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Ellen Ritteman, F. William Soisson, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WEICK and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
ORDER
On receipt and consideration of an appeal in the above-styled case; and
Noting that appellant was convicted after jury trial on two counts of passing counterfeit notes and one count of possession of counterfeit notes, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 (1970); and
Further noting that the only appellate issue presented is appellant’s claim that “the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that defendant’s prior convictions of carrying a concealed weapon and attempted armed robbery would be admissible at trial”; and
Having determined from the record that the District Judge considered the question of cross-examination on prior crimes and ruled in advance that the testimony concerning one offense would not be admissible but that testimony pertaining to two felony convictions (which permitted sentences in excess of one year) would be admissible if defendant took the stand; and
Noting further from the record that appellant in fact did not take the stand, but nonetheless contends prejudicial error in said pretrial ruling by the Judge in influencing his decision not to take the stand; and
Further noting that Rule 609(a) provides as follows:
(a) General rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.
Fed.R.Evid. 609(a).
And further noting that the District Judge in his pretrial ruling clearly exercised his discretion, as called for by Rule 609 by holding that a conviction for the sale of marijuana could not be admitted or allowed to be made a subject of cross-examination if defendant took the stand; and
Further finding no abuse of that discretion in ruling that the two felonies of carrying a concealed weapon and attempted robbery armed could be the subject of cross-examination,
Now, therefore, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?

Choices:
No
Yes
Yes, but error was harmless
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 0