With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". marshals arrived at the apartment where Charles was staying to arrest him, entered Charles’s armed-robbery trial during the State’s cross-examination of his alibi witness, Melissa Sulton, Charles’s girlfriend at the time. Sulton maintained throughout cross-examination that she did not know why the marshals were looking for Charles. Sul-ton also admitted that she knew authorities were looking for Charles prior to the marshals’ arrival because she had received a phone call from the mother of one of Charles’s other children that “the feds” were looking for Charles. ¶ 30. That no direct evidence was presented showing that Charles had any knowledge of the crime for which he was arrested, is of no matter. See, e.g., United States v. Hernandez-Miranda, 601 F.2d 1104, 1106 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). What Mississippi law

A: holding that although evidence of a defendants flight is admissible as circumstantial evidence of guilt it is improper for the trial judge to instruct the jury on the law of flight because such an instruction oftentimes has the potential for creating more problems than solutions as it places undue emphasis upon that part of circumstantial evidence
B: holding that while other reasons might support defendants decision to take flight  this in itself does not make a flight instruction improper
C: holding that a flight instruction was to be given only in cases wherein that circumstance had considerable probative value
D: holding that erroneous instruction that flight from the scene of the crime implied guilt was harmless because there was other evidence to sustain a conviction
B.