With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 851, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990)). In Maryland v. Craig, the Supreme Court has held that the “use of the one-way closed circuit television procedure, where necessary to further an important state interest, does not impinge upon the truth-seeking or symbolic purposes of the Confrontation Clause.” Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. at 851, 110 S.Ct. 3157. The Supreme Court also explained that “if the State makes an adequate showing of necessity, the state interest in protecting child witnesses from the trauma of testifying in a child abuse case is sufficiently important to justify the use of a special procedure that permits a child witness in such cases to testify at trial against a defendant in the absence of face-to-face confrontation with the defendant.” Id. at 855, 110 S.Ct. 3157 (<HOLDING>); see also Jelinek v. Costello, 247 F.Supp.2d

A: holding that the trial court did not err in allowing a witness to testify regarding the child victims hearsay statements prior to the child testifying because ocga  24316 allows testimony about a childs outofcourt statements even in cases when the child does not appear as a witness as long as the child is available at the trial to testify
B: holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing
C: holding that use of a oneway closed circuit television proce dure where necessary to further an important state interest does not impinge upon the truthseeking or symbolic purposes of the confrontation clause
D: holding that the confrontation clause does not categorically prohibit a child witness in a sexual abuse case from testifying against a defendant at trial outside defendants physical presence by means of oneway closed circuit television
D.