With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that: “[T]he fact that this ended in a mistrial has [nothing] to do with the issues before this Court today.” Because the trial court did not determine whether Kriho’s action, in obtaining the sentencing information from the Internet, constituted a violation of the specific instructions given by the court, or constituted extraneous prejudicial information within the meaning of CRE 606(b), we do not address the issue involving Kriho’s use of the Internet. Nor do we determine whether there was a basis for admitting any evidence of deliberations pursuant to CRE 606(b). It is also unclear whether CRE 606(b) would apply to a mistrial or is limited to verdicts. Colorado has not addressed the issue and there is a split of authority in other jurisdictions. See Witherspoon v. Arkansas, supra (<HOLDING>); hut see Bays v. Petan Co., supra

A: holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify
B: holding that rule 606b contains no exception for racially biased statements made during jury deliberations and expressing skepticism about whether constitutional concerns can ever override the rule
C: holding that a witness could testify about statements made to him by a police department investigator because the statements were an admission by partyopponent and were thus not excluded by the hearsay rule
D: holding that the arkansas counterpart to cre 606b applies whether a verdict is reached or a mistrial declared and under the extraneous information exception allows jurors to testify about statements made during deliberations
D.