With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 544 (2014). The court determined that the sanctions imposed were not unduly harsh in light of the appellants’ willful and repeated failure to comply with various orders of the trial court, which resulted in unnecessary delay and prejudice to the respondents. Id.; see also McNair v. Fairfield Cnty., 379 S.C. 462, 467, 665 S.E.2d 830, 832-33 (Ct.App.2008) (finding “the severe sanction” of striking the defendant’s answer appropriate in light of the defendant’s failure to produce documents seven and a half months after the trial court granted plaintiffs motion to compel, which this court determined amounted to willful disobedience and resulted in delay and prejudice to the plaintiffs right to have the claim heard); QZO, Inc. v. Moyer, 358 S.C. 246, 257-58, 594 S.E.2d 541, 548 (Ct.App.2004) (<HOLDING>); Griffin Grading & Clearing, Inc., 334 S.C. at

A: holding that we cannot properly receive and consider evidence that was not presented to and considered by the trial court
B: holding the trial court properly considered the severity of the sanction when it struck a pleading based on the appellants intentional defiance of the trial courts order and his willful destruction of evidence
C: holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial
D: holding that the trial court properly added a party defendant to conform to the evidence presented at the trial
B.