With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". have inferred that Jones’s possession of these materials at home was not pursuant to her employment. Jones took the materials home without checking them out to herself through the library’s system, as one witness testified employees were required to do. Also, Jones purchased many DVDs over an extended period of time without setting up a DVD collection in the library or cataloguing the DVDs, and she testified that she purchased for herself many of the same titles she purchased for the library, although the library’s copy could not be found. From this evidence the jury could have inferred that Jones took these items with the requisite intent to deprive and that her possession was not merely an incident to her employment duties. Cf. Ray v. United States, 229 A.2d 161, 162 (D.C.App.1967) (<HOLDING>). The jury could have made numerous inferences

A: holding that the evidence was insufficient to show intent to steal if the evidence showed only possession of the materials as a normal incident of employment
B: holding that there was sufficient evidence of innocent intent where both the states and defendants evidence showed that the defendant was coerced at knifepoint to enter
C: holding that evidence of a 10yearold drug conviction was properly admitted to show intent in a prosecution for possession with intent to distribute
D: holding that intent to carjack requires that defendant possessed intent to seriously harm or kill driver if necessary to steal car
A.