With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Evid. 403. Id., 331 N.C. at 41, 413 S.E.2d at 788. According to the Supreme Court, this holding rested “on the proposition that the presumption of innocence continues with the defendant after his acquittal and so erodes the probative value of the evidence of the previous crime that it is more prejudicial than probative, making it inadmissible under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1; Rule 403.” State v. Lynch, 337 N.C. 415, 419, 445 S.E.2d 581, 582 (1994). Although the principle set forth in Scott would not operate to bar the presentation of evidence that Defendant possessed cocaine and digital scales on 10 February 2005 given Defendant’s subsequent conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell and deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia, See Stager, 329 N.C. at 303, 406 S.E.2d at 890 (<HOLDING>), it does operate the bar the presentation of

A: recognizing substantial probative value of tape recording that provided direct evidence of knowledge element of crime charged
B: holding that the more similar the prior bad act is to the charged crime the more relevant the prior bad act becomes toward proving intent
C: holding that the existing exceptions to rule 404bs general bar against the admission of propensity evidence allow for the introduction of both prior and subsequent bad acts evidence
D: holding that a prior conviction may be a bad act for purposes of rule 404b if substantial evidence supports a finding that defendant committed both acts and the probative value is not limited solely to tending to establish the defendants propensity to commit a crime such as the crime charged
D.