With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by the State regarding the defendant’s decision not to testify may constitute reversible error if (1) the prosecutor’s manifest intention was to comment on the accused’s failure to testify, or (2) the remark was of such a character that a jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the accused’s failure to testify. (Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Smith v. State, 279 Ga. 48, 49 (2) (610 SE2d 26) (2005). See OCGA § 24-9-20 (b). Although we cannot conclude that the prosecutor’s reference in front of the jury to Eason taking the stand was proper, neither prong of the foregoing test is satisfied here, and a reversal is not required. The prosecutor was arguing a plausible evidentiary objection. See, e.g., Parker v. State, 276 Ga. 598 (2) (581 SE2d 7) (2003) (<HOLDING>). In this context, the prosecutor’s manifest

A: holding that as a general rule a defendant cannot create exculpatory evidence by introducing selfserving hearsay statements made by the defendant to another
B: holding selfserving declarations are inadmissible hearsay unless defendant testifies
C: holding doctors letter is inadmissible hearsay
D: holding that hearsay within a police report was inadmissible
B.