With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. State, 827 P.2d 1117 (Wyo.1992) (noting that law enforcement officials must comply with parental notification statute for juveniles’ statements to be admissible); MAC. v. Harrison County Family Court, supra, 566 No.2d 472 (finding that police’s blatant violation of juvenile’s statutory right to have parent present during interrogation required exclusion of any statements made). Cf. A Minor Boy v. State, 91 Nev. 456, 537 P.2d 477 (1975) (finding that mandates of notification statute were satisfied where “all reasonable efforts” were made by police to contact defendant’s mother and not more than one hour could have elapsed before she was contacted and there was “no evidence of any intentional delay in contacting” defendant’s mother); In re Williams, 265 S.C. 295, 217 S.E.2d 719 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The courts in those states presumably would

A: recognizing that in the absence of a statutory definition statutory terms are construed in accordance with their ordinary or natural meaning
B: holding that where a defendant expressly manifested his belief in the truth of the statements contained in the motion to dismiss thereby adopting those statements as his own such statements are admissible against the defendant in the states case in chief
C: holding that statements are admissible in absence of showing that parents were not notified in accordance with statute
D: holding inconsistent out of court statements otherwise admissible not admissible against government in criminal prosecution
C.