With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the jury that Bailey was of bad character and was willing to engage in criminal pursuits. As was the case with the evidence about the four-wheeler and the tractor, this evidence was not admissible, and it did not come within any exception to the exclusionary rule. The trial court erred when it allowed evidence of the collateral acts. Even if we had determined that evidence about the four-wheeler, the tractor, and the conversations recorded at Reeves’ residence fit within an exception to the exclusionary rule, we would nonetheless hold that the collateral-act evidence was inadmissible because it was not reasonably necessary to the State’s case and because its probative value was far outweighed by its prejudicial value. See, e.g., Ex parte Jackson, 33 So.3d 1279, 1286 (Ala.2009) (<HOLDING>). None of the collateral-act evidence

A: holding for evidence to be admissible under rule 404b its relevance must not include bad character or propensity as a necessary link in the inferential chain
B: holding that proponent of 404b evidence must identify a proper 404b purpose for admission  that is at issue in  the case
C: holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper
D: holding that to admit evidence of prior bad acts under rule 404b ala r evid the state must demonstrate that the evidence was reasonably necessary to its case
D.