With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Cyco at trial, especially after Pfau’s own defense opened the door to this relevant evidence. See State v. Sallis, 574 N.W.2d 15, 16 (Iowa 1998) (stating Iowa courts “grant the district court wide latitude regarding admissibility [of prejudicial evidence] and will disturb the court’s ruling only upon finding an abuse of discretion”). The trial court took great pains to ensure the questioning of Rice about Cyco was brief and did not invoke a discussion about gangs. The State heeded the trial court’s caution, and briefly discussed Cyco solely to impeach Rice. We also read Nance far differently than does Pfau. Nance did not announce that gang-related evidence is never admissible. See, e.g., Wedebrand v. State, No. 02-0568, 2003 WL 21543146, at *5 (Iowa Ct.App. July 10, 2003) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); State v. Dixon, No. 00-829, 2001 WL 1450991,

A: holding that murder committed by minor gang members was not foreseeable result of sale of alcohol to gang members
B: holding defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim because any evidentiary error was harmless
C: holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel
D: holding appellate counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to appeal district courts decision to admit evidence that defendant was a member of a gang because gang membership was relevant to show motive and intent
D.