With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 9, 35, 906 P.2d 542, 568 (1995) (finding the question to be “whether the prosecutor’s actions were reasonably likely to have affected the jury’s verdict, thereby denying him a fair trial”). When misconduct results in the defendant being denied a fair trial, we will reverse even absent an objection at the time of the misconduct. State v. Duzan, 176 Ariz. 463, 467, 862 P.2d 223, 227 (App.1993). ¶ 42 Canion contends that the prosecutor asked him a number of questions during cross-examination in which he highlighted the differences between Canion’s testimony and Officer Madeya’s testimony, and that the prosecutor asked Canion to comment on the officer’s credibility. Canion argues that these questions were improper, citing State v. Reimer, 189 Ariz. 239, 241, 941 P.2d 912, 914 (App.1997) (<HOLDING>), and United States v. Sanchez, 176 F.3d 1214,

A: holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error
B: holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness
C: holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand
D: holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness
D.