With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". concerning repeated complaints filed against Bailey and ber husband by Bayles at their place of employment. While the trial court did not find each of these incidents occurred by a preponderance of the evidence, Mr. Bayles was clearly on notice of the nature of the petition and the underlying allegations supporting it. 2 . For clarity, we refer to criminal Stalking using a capital "S" and behavior referred to as stalking with a small ""s." 3 . This is a long established practice of appellate courts both in and out of Utah. See, eg., 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 714 ("the appellate court will affirm the judgment, order, or decree appealed from if it is sustainable on any legal ground or theory apparent from the record"); see also Rasmussen v. Davis, 1 Utah 2d 96, 262 P.2d 488, 489 (1953)(<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the trial court

A: holding that it is axiomatic that this court can affirm a circuit court if the right result is reached even if for a different reason
B: holding that it is the accepted policy of the court to affirm a trial courts ruling on other grounds if the conclusion reached though based on incorrect reasons is in fact correct for some other reason footnote omitted
C: holding where a ruling in a criminal ease is correct though based upon an incorrect reason it still may be sustained upon the proper legal theory
D: holding that an appellate court may affirm the result reached by a district court on alternative grounds
B.