With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Sergeant DeGraff added that Turbe wished to call the F.B.I. in reference to a prior search of Turbe’s home that uncovered guns and bullet proof vests, which was unrelated to the case at bar. The prosecutor then delved deeper into the subject of the prior search by asking Sergeant DeGraff the following two questions: Q: Were you present when the items were taken from [Turbe’s] home? A: Yes, I was. Q: Do you recall what they were? (Trial Tr. 197, July 7, 2004.) This line of inquiry improper, as it was beyond the scope of anything Turbe testified about. See United States v. Pantone, 609 F.2d 675, 681 (3d Cir. 1979) (noting that rebuttal testimony is improper when it “does not rebut anything said by the defendant.”); see also United States v. Forsythe, 594 F.2d 947 (3d Cir. 1979) (<HOLDING>). Under these circumstances, it was also

A: holding intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes and not general intent crimes
B: holding that evidence of uncharged crimes was improper on rebuttal since none of the defendants made any general denial of wrongdoing which might have justified rebuttal in the form of evidence of uncharged crimes
C: holding that evidence of violent crimes and other illegal activities of defendants gang was not unduly prejudicial because defendant was not directly implicated and the evidence was probative of elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with
D: holding that evidence of uncharged crimes was improper on rebuttal because the defendant did not make any general denials of wrongdoing
B.