With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Court finds that testimony about that patient’s motivation would be quite probative of whether Defendant was issuing prescriptions out side the usual course of professional practice. Second, the Court notes that its ruling pertains only to the government’s case in chief. If the Defendant were himself to open the door in some way that would make the non-hearsay purpose for the proffered patient testimony relevant — such as presenting evidence or argument that Defendant’s patients chose to visit his practice for other reasons — the testimony may become admissible. Under these circumstances, the probative value of testimony that the patients in fact had other motivations would become significantly probative. See United States v. Johnson, 730 F.2d 683, 691 (11th Cir. 1984) (<HOLDING>). If the government contends that this has

A: holding that defense counsel opened the door to the states rebuttal remarks when defense counsel raised the issue in his closing argument
B: holding that defense counsel opened the door to the prosecutions questioning of the defendant about prior convictions when defense counsel asked a prosecution witness whether he was aware that the defendant was  a convicted felon
C: holding that trial court properly ruled that once defense counsel opened the door on crossexamination evidences probative value was enhanced such that it outweighed its prejudicial effect
D: holding that defendant cannot object to counsels attempt to rebut proposition once defendant has opened door to line of testimony
C.