With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Sebasky’s intent and state of mind. It is undisputed neither complainant knew anything about the bulletins’ content. Given these facts, the challenged evidence tends not to corroborate witness testimony, but only to suggest improperly that Sebasky acted in conformity with his beliefs about relationships between men and boys. See Minn.R.Evid. 404(a) (requiring evidence of a person’s character show more than “conformity therewith on a particular occasion”); State v. Miggler, 419 N.W.2d 81, 85 (Minn.App.1988) (stating magazines containing child pornography, the admission of which would not corroborate any of the complainant’s testimony, could not be admitted to show the defendant’s propensity to sexually abuse children); People v. Bagarozy, 132 A.D.2d 225, 522 N.Y.S.2d 848, 855 (1987) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Harris, 521 N.W.2d 348, 353

A: holding improper admission of hearsay evidence is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice
B: holding that we would not review a claim of error regarding the admission of evidence when the defendant stipulated to its admission at trial
C: holding that admission of evidence of defendants gross receipts was reversible error
D: holding the admission of nambla affiliation was error because its only purpose was to demonstrate the defendants sexual tendencies
D.