With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". prior inconsistent statements are admissible as non-hearsay when “the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement [is] inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition.” Choute’s prior inconsistent statement failed to comply with this requirement because his videotaped statement was not given under oath at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition. Canton failed to object to the admission of Choute’s inconsistent statement at trial; therefore, the trial court’s error only warrants reversal if it meets the plain error standard. See V.I.S.Ct.R. 4(h); Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1124, 185 L. Ed. 2d 85 (2013) (<HOLDING>). The plain error standard is met where there

A: recognizing that plain error analysis requires 1 error 2 that is plain 3 that affects defendants substantial rights and 4 that seriously affects fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings
B: holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings
C: holding that under federal rule of appellate procedure 52b plain error in a jury charge may be considered by an appellate court although it was not brought to the attention of the trial court
D: holding that a plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not objected to or brought to the courts attention
D.