With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Fifth Amendment. Gray, 796 A.2d at 717. In response to the State’s contention that Appellant fully presented his theory of the case to the jury, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s refusal to permit Appellant to call Ms. Day to the stand was harmless. See Jenkins, 195 W.Va. at 628, 466 S.E.2d at 479. Simply put, we cannot be certain that the jury would not have viewed Appellant’s theory of the case in a different light had Ms. Day taken the stand and either responded to questions posed by defense counsel or refused to testify in the jury’s presence. Based on the specific circumstances present in this case, an acquitted co-defendant who refused to testify despite a grant of immunity combined with sufficient evidence suggesting that the co-defendant may have been the sole per t 150 (<HOLDING>). Based on the specific facts presented by this

A: holding exclusion of defendants nephews prior inconsistent statement constituted reversible error
B: holding that sua sponte grant of summary judgment without notice to the parties constitutes reversible error
C: holding exclusion was harmless error
D: recognizing that exclusion of testimony that provides a direct link to someone other than the defen dant committing the crime  constitutes reversible error
D.