With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by overruling precedent is State v. Ikezawa, 75 Haw. 210, 857 P.2d 593 (1993). In Ikezawa, this court reiterated that State v. Stone, 65 Haw. 308, 651 P.2d 485 (1982), was overruled by State v. Balauro, 73 Haw. 70, 828 P.2d 267 (1992), which held that the six-month period under HRPP 48(b), within which a criminal trial must be commenced, is tolled when a later charge is the same or is required to be joined with the original charge. Ikezawa, 75 Haw. at 221-22, 857 P.2d at 598-99. The Ikezawa court held that the principle stated in Balauro constituted a new rule and, after conducting a balancing test as to whether to apply the new rule retroactively, found that purely prospective application was more appropriate. Id.; see also State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 492 P.2d 657, 665-67 (1971) (<HOLDING>). 28 . The U.S. Supreme Court has also

A: holding that this courts decision in state v cuevas 53 haw 110 488 p2d 322 1971 in which we invalidated a statute imposing the burden upon a defendant to disprove the existence of malice once the act of killing is proved by the prosecution and which overruled cases that previously upheld the statutes validity announced a new rule that should be accorded pipeline retroactive application
B: holding that the act is retroactive
C: holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged
D: holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective
A.