With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the State may not move for a new trial after the final bond forfeiture and that such an attempt is a nullity.” Id. The court therefore concluded that the State did not have another adequate remedy for the court’s erroneous ruling. Id. The issue presented in Sellers was whether the State may appeal in a bond forfeiture proceeding. To resolve this issue, the court examined constitutional and statutory history. The court noted that the Texas Constitution of 1876 prohibited the State from appealing in criminal cases. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d at 318. Based on this prohibition, courts held that the State could not appeal in bond forfeiture cases, in spite of a statute that expressly authorized the State to appeal in such cases. Id. at 318-19; see also State v. Ward, 9 Tex.App. 462, 462-63 (1880) (<HOLDING>). The Legislature eventually acceded to the

A: holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings
B: holding discovery rules apply to civil forfeiture proceedings
C: holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings
D: holding that statute authorizing appeal did not render bond forfeiture proceedings civil or negate constitutional prohibition on appeals by the state in criminal cases
D.