With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Clause regarding admission of hearsay). Hearsay statements ordinarily do not violate a defendant’s right to confront witnesses so long as they bear “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” State v. Cook, 135 N.H. 655, 662 (1992), or fall within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception.” State v. Bader, 148 N.H. 265, 277 (2002); but see State v. Christiansen, 135 N.H. 583, 586 (1992) (blood test report admitted without live testimony constitutes “trial by certificate and affidavit” and violates Confrontation Clause). We find that Raymond’s statements possessed sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness. While many of his statements were responses to questions, Raymond’s answers were spontaneous in the sense that they described his contemporaneous state of mind. Cf Cook, 135 N.H. at 664 (<HOLDING>). Likewise, it is highly unlikely that Raymond

A: holding that party that failed to object to instruction that jury not answer a question based on its answer to the prior question waived that partys right to have the jury make findings as to the subsequent question
B: holding question of contributory negligence was harmless because once jury found defendant did not proximately cause the occurrence in question defendant was exonerated of liability such that neither an affirmative nor a negative answer to plaintiffs negligence could have altered the verdict
C: holding appellant could not obtain a new trial so that jury could answer liability question because the charge instructed the jury not to answer the question based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction
D: holding answer spontaneously volunteered in response to a question that was neither leading nor suggestive is a factor establishing reliability of statement against penal interest
D.