With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". case, “[t]he greater the amount of a controlled substance found in a defendant’s possession, the greater the inference of knowledge....” State v. Groce, 133 Idaho 144, 152, 983 P.2d 217, 225 (Ct.App.1999). Here, the evidence of the two pipes and the methamphetamine residue found in the vehicle were relevant as to Pullin’s knowledge of his possession of a controlled substance as the existence of the evidence found in the vehicle bolsters the inference that he had knowledge of the methamphetamine on his person. We conclude that the evidence was relevant and that the district court acted within the boundaries of its discretion in admitting it. We therefore affirm the ruling of the district court on this basis. See State v. Pierce, 107 Idaho 96, 102, 685 P.2d 837, 843 (CtApp.1984) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION With regard to Case No.

A: holding where a ruling in a criminal ease is correct though based upon an incorrect reason it still may be sustained upon the proper legal theory
B: holding that a jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on the evidence
C: holding that on appeal a summary judgment ruling will be upheld if it can be sustained on any grounds even if the trial court gave an incorrect reason for its ruling
D: holding that it is the accepted policy of the court to affirm a trial courts ruling on other grounds if the conclusion reached though based on incorrect reasons is in fact correct for some other reason footnote omitted
A.