With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 3 .The material facts are not in dispute. This recitation of facts is taken almost verbatim from the Opening Brief filed on behalf of Richards. 4 . Supr. Ct. R. 8. 5 . See Del.Code Ann. tit. 11, § 271 (1974). 6 . Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965). See also Jackson v. State, 643 A.2d 1360 (Del.1994). 7 . United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 31-32, 108 S.Ct. 864, 99 L.Ed.2d 23 (1988). 8 .Id. 9 . Id. at 27, 108 S.Ct. 864. 10 . Id. 11 . Id. at 29, 108 S.Ct. 864. 12 . United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 31-32, 108 S.Ct. 864, 99 L.Ed.2d 23 (1988). 13 . Id. at 33, 108 S.Ct. 864, citing Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (emphasis added). 14 . See, e.g., Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 1345, 1357 (Del.1991) (<HOLDING>). 15 . Miller v. State, 750 A.2d 530 (Table)

A: holding that a supervisors repeated comments to an employee that the supervisor wanted to have sex with the employees fifteenyearold daughter were extremely severe because the comments were significantly more offensive than the typical crass comments we have found to be insufficient to constitute harassment in other cases
B: holding that plain error is the appropriate standard of review when a defendant objects to a prosecutors comments at trial does not move for a mistrial and then on appeal argues that the comments deprived him of a fair trial
C: holding that the prosecutors repeated comments that the defendant could have denied knowledge of the drugs or rebutted the trafficking charge by testifying were so prejudicial as to constitute plain error
D: holding instruction to jury that counsels arguments were not evidence did not negatej the prejudicial effect of the prosecutors inflammatory comments
C.