In People v. Bell, 88 Mich App 345, 347-348, 350; 276 NW2d 605 (1979), the Court reversed the defendant's conviction of armed robbery where the trial court barred cross-examination of an accomplice concerning the sentencing implications of pleading to a reduced charge, i.e., that armed robbery was a nonprobationable offense, whereas the reduced charge of assault with intent to rob while armed was probationable. The Bell Court stated: A limitation on cross-examination which prevents a person charged with a crime from placing before the jury facts from which bias, prejudice or lack of credibility of a prosecution witness might be inferred constitutes denial of the right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 348, quoting United States v. Garrett, 542 F2d 23, 25 (CA 6, 1976). The Bell Court concluded that the importance of the distinction between a probationable and a nonprobationable offense was a fact which could have motivated the witness in testifying against the defendant, and this fact was essential for the jury to determine the reliability of the witness' testimony. Bell, supra at 350.