With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". assistance, by persuading the court that there was no conceivable tactical basis for counsel's actions." Clark, 2004 UT 25 at T6, 89 P.3d 162 (alteration, citation, and quotations omitted). Marble's bare assertion that "[tlhere is no conceivable trial strategy to elicit and then allow that type of testimony especially when the case hinged on the vie-tim's credibility," does not rebut this presumption. {12 Utah courts have recognized that when viewing "the variety of cireumstances faced by defense counsel," a conscious choice not to object to arguably inadmissible testimony may, at times, fall within "the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant," Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. See, eg., State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 7, 89 P.3d 162 (<HOLDING>); State v. Pecht, 2002 UT 41, ¶ ¶ 40-44, 48

A: holding that trial counsel made a reasonable tactical decision not to object to damaging testimony as it would merely serve to highlight the testimony
B: holding that even if the alleged failure to present mitigating evidence was an oversight and not a tactical choice by counsel it was harmless
C: holding that pretrial motions in limine were not feasible because counsel could not have anticipated inadmissible testimony
D: holding that counsel may well have made a reasonable tactical choice to not object to arguably inadmissible testimony
D.