With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". since “the State was forced to change its trial strategy mid-trial and argue in the alternative at closing because of McWhorter’s surprise trial testimony. The State’s theory had always been that Diondráy Beal was the principal robber.” The state argues that even if the trial court did err in allowing it to impeach McWhorter, the outcome of the trial would not have been different, given the ample circumstantial evidence that Dearmond participated in the robbery as the getaway driver. Further, the state argues that the jury must be presumed to follow the trial court’s instructions. Finally, the state notes that we previously determined that the admission of McWhorter’s inconsistent statement was proper in State v. Beal, Clark App. No. 07-CA-86, 2008-Ohio-4007, 2008 WL 3165924 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 25} Evid.R. 607(A) provides, “The

A: holding that statement within expert report is not a judicial admission but is instead an admission by party
B: holding that admission of mcwhorters prior statement did not unfairly prejudice beal
C: holding improper admission of hearsay evidence is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice
D: holding that admission of prior statement constituted error but was harmless when other admissible evidence established the same fact
B.