With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". counters that, although he did not raise a pros-ecutorial misconduct claim based on the above-cited prosecutorial comments, he did raise a prosecutorial misconduct claim to the Ohio Supreme Court. Further, petitioner claims that, so long as he “fairly presented” a claim to state court, he has satisfied the exhaustion requirement pursuant to Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982). ' While petitioner’s assertion is not invalid, he fails-to acknowledge a corollary to the exhaustion requirement — “that the doctrine of exhaustion requires that a claim be presented to the state courts under the same theory in which it is later presented to federal court.” Wong v. Money, 142 F.3d 313, 322 (6th Cir.1998); see also Alley v. Bell, 307 F.3d 380, 386 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Because he cannot demonstrate cause for

A: holding substance of claim must have been presented to state court
B: holding that a claim including a constitutional claim must have been asserted to the trial court to be raised on appeal
C: holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance
D: holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance
A.