With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on the issue of retroactive application of the amendment. Thus, we agree with the defendant that Paradise stands for the proposition that, for certain types of criminal statutes, such as a statute of limitations for the prosecution of a crime, the language of the statute must “clearly necessitate] ”; State v. Paradise, supra, 189 Conn. 353; a retrospective application in order for one to be given. We agree with the state, however, that footnote 5 of Paradise and the holding in In re Daniel H. make clear that statutes affecting “other areas of the criminal process”; State v. Paradise, supra, 353 n.5; may be given retrospective effect if the legislative history evinces a clear and unequivocal intent for such a retrospective application. Id.; see In re Daniel H., supra, 237 Conn. 376 (<HOLDING>). Our task, then, is to determine whether P.A.

A: holding that the narrowing of the use of parnar claims only applies absent a clear expression of legislative intent to the contrary and citing to hrs  37869 as an example of such legislative intent
B: holding that substantive criminal statute could not be applied retrospectively because there was nothing  in the language or the legislative history that was a clear and unequivocal expression of legislative intent to rebut presumption of prospective application only
C: holding statutes are not applied retroactively absent clear legislative intent
D: holding that even where there are  contrary indications in the statutes legislative history we do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear
B.