With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In addition to these enumerated exceptions, a common-law exception has survived the 1994 adoption of the Indiana Rules of Evidence. See Walton, 715 N.E.2d at 826-828. This exception provides that evidence of a prior accusation of rape is admissible if: (1) the victim has admitted that his or her prior accusation of rape is false; or (2) the victim’s prior accusation is demonstrably false. Id. Here, evidence that A.S. viewed an allegedly pornographic video and had been previously molested does not fall into one of the enumerated exceptions of Ind. Evidence Rule 412 or under the common law exception. The Indiana Supreme Court has held that the exclusion of past molestation was not erroneous under Indiana’s Rape Shield Statute and Rule. See Tague v. State, 539 N.E.2d 480, 482 (Ind.1989) (<HOLDING>); Beckham v. State, 531 N.E.2d 475, 477

A: holding that sexual molestation of students by teacher is presumed to result in physical injury
B: holding trial court did not err by permitting evidence that defendant molested another child three years before the victim
C: holding that an abuse or molestation exclusion unambiguously covered claim of sexual touching even though terms abuse and molestation were not defined
D: holding that the trial court did not err in excluding the evidence of possible molestation of the victim by a person other than the defendant and virginity or the lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with the crime of child molestation
D.