With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". testified that defendant was not suffering from a mental disease or defect. Defendant’s personality traits, which Dr. Kull said did not amount to a disease or defect that should excuse or mitigate his conduct, were immaterial to the case, or at least of only minimal materiality, unless a psychiatric evaluation of the trustworthiness of a witness’s testimony is admissible to assist the jury’s weighing of credibility. State v. J.Q., supra, 252 N.J.Super. at 39, 599 A.2d 172 (credibility is an issue reserved exclusively for the jury); United States v. Whitted, 11 F.3d 782, 785-87 (8th Cir.1993). Assuming arguendo that such a psychological evaluation of the credibility of a witness would ever be admissible, it surely could not be admitted without a substantia 15 A.2d 1260 (App.Div.1986) (<HOLDING>). Dr. Kull’s testimony acquainted the jury with

A: holding that trial court is not required to give limiting instruction when defendant did not object at first opportunity because evidence admitted for all purposes
B: holding that a limiting instruction is required where evidence of a prior conviction is admitted over objection
C: holding that despite limiting instruction letter written by murder victim shortly before his death was improperly admitted
D: holding defendant who failed to request limiting instruction concerning use of extraneous offenses at the moment the evidence was admitted was not entitled to limiting instructions in jury charge
C.