party may only inquire as to the existence of convictions and their number (or, if the matter be denied, may show the convictions by documentary evidence) the party presenting the testimony of the witness may delve into the nature or circumstances of the convictions for the purpose of rehabilitating the witness by attempting to diminish the effect of the disclosures. Id. at 522; see also McArthur v. Cook, 99 So.2d 565, 567 (Fla.1957)(“If the witness so desires he may of his own volition state the nature of the crime and offer any relevant testimony that would eliminate any adverse implications; for example, the fact that he had in the meantime been fully pardoned or that the crime was a minor one and occurred many years before.”); Williams v. State, 730 So.2d 777, 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(<HOLDING>). In the present case, during the defendant’s
holding without discussion of montgomery that a defendant can only be impeached by evidence of a conviction of a prior felony or infamous crime holding that witness could not be impeached with prior statement because his silence did not constitute testimony  holding that on direct examination of defendant he is entitled to explain the nature and circumstances of his prior conviction in order to rehabilitate himself prior to being impeached by the state during crossexamination holding that where defendant stipulates to prior felony conviction evidence of the nature of the prior crime is irrelevant and should be excluded holding that a defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination may not on appeal claim that the admission of such evidence was error