With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to comply with Rule 412(d), defendant failed to establish the relevance of C.T.’s testimony. Defense counsel, claimed that C.T. would testify that he had sex with Helen on either 7 or 8 July 2004, just a day or two before Helen accused defendant of sexual abuse. Dr. Pringle, however, testified that he examined Helen within a week of the allegations, on 14 July 2004, and that the scarring he found in her vaginal area had occurred “at least a month or more” prior to the examination. Thus, the undisputed medical evidence indicated that Helen’s having sex with C.T. could not have resulted in the vaginal scarring, and therefore C.T.’s testimony would not tend to show that defendant did not commit the charged offenses. See State v. Holden, 106 N.C. App. 244, 247, 416 S.E.2d 415, 417 (<HOLDING>), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 332

A: holding that intervening misconduct can sever the temporal proximity connection between the protected conduct and the adverse employment
B: holding that in addition to temporal proximity plaintiff must show further evidence supporting a causal connection
C: holding that there must be a temporal connection between the dates of the alleged offense and the evidence pointing to another perpetrator
D: holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection
C.