With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". statements to the grand jury, the state had used inadmissible evidence to obtain the indictment. He contended that since these statements had been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, Judge Thompson should apply the standard set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), which requires the court to apply a harmless beyond a reasonable doubt test. The state did not contest the fact that Sergeant Case’s statements to Lt. Ward during the administrative investigation were compelled statements which are generally not admissible. However, the state argued that Case’s statements to Lt. Ward could be considered exculpatory evidence which the state was obligated to present to the grand jury. Frink v. State, 597 P.2d 154, 164-65 (Alaska 1979) (<HOLDING>). The state pointed out that it had contacted

A: holding the prosecutor is required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury
B: holding that courts have no authority to require the government to disclose exculpatory evidence to the grand jury because it would alter the grandjurys historical role
C: holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence
D: holding that a conviction violated due process because the prosecutor knowingly refused to disclose crucial exculpatory evidence to the defendant
A.