With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or not a person who’s facing extradition can waive their right to fight extradition?” Carridine objected to this question, and the objection was sustained. Later, the State asked an investigator, “Are you aware whether or not extradition can be waived?” Carridine objected, and his objection was sustained on the ground of relevance. Finally, the State asked Carridine, “So did you legally fight [extradition] in Illinois?” Carridine responded that he fought extradition on the advice of counsel. In State v. Harris, upon which Carridine relies, we stated, “Questions by a prosecutor calculated to elicit or insinuate inadmissible and highly prejudicial character evidence and which are asked in the face of a clear trial court prohibition are not tolerable.” 521 N.W.2d 348, 354 (Minn.1994) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the State’s questions were not

A: holding that the state committed prejudicial misconduct by exposing the jury to two inadmissible prior bad acts
B: holding that the more similar the prior bad act is to the charged crime the more relevant the prior bad act becomes toward proving intent
C: holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime
D: holding as to the admissibility of prior bad acts that allegedly took place fourteen and twelve years before the acts alleged in that case that the lapse of time between the defendants sexual acts    goes to the weight of the evidence not to its admissibility
A.