With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The trial court also imposed the maximum fine authorized by the jury, forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000). In this appeal as of right, the defendant raises the following four issues for this Court to consider: 1. the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to present evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct unrelated to the counts in the indictment in its case-in-ehief; 2. the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses; 3. the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences; and, 4. the trial court erred in imposing fines totalling forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000). We find that the defendant’s first issue has merit, and his convictions are t 1989 WL 100223 Washington County (Tenn.Crim.App. filed August 31, 1989, at Knoxville) (<HOLDING>). After hearing argument from both the State

A: holding that evidence of prior uncharged sexual conduct with the victim is admissible to corroborate the victims testimony
B: holding that prior uncharged sexual conduct between the defendant and the victim is admissible to show their state of intimacy as well as to explain the circumstances surrounding the offense
C: holding that evidence of uncharged incest with the same victim is admissible to illustrate the relationship existing between the defendant and the victim
D: holding evidence of past uncharged sexual encounters admissible in child sexual abuse case to show relationship between defendant and alleged victim
B.