With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Jones, 363 Mo. 998, 255 S.W.2d 801, 806 (1953) (finding juror misconduct, the court then considered whether the prosecution had met its burden of proof); State v. Bayless, 362 Mo. 109, 240 S.W.2d 114, 123 (1951) (declining to decide whether juror misconduct occurred and addressing the issue of burden of proof only after assuming juror misconduct for the purpose of disposing of the issue); State v. Choate, 600 S.W.2d 37, 42 (Mo.App.1980) (stating that an unsupported allegation of juror misconduct in motion for new trial does not shift the burden of proof to the prosecution to affirmatively show absence of improper influence). 5 . Chambers, 891 S.W.2d at 101. 6 . Shirrell v. Missouri Edison Co., 535 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Mo. banc 1976). 7 . See State v. Gaitan, 442 S.W.2d 530, 533 (Mo.1969) (<HOLDING>); State v. Jackson, 412 S.W.2d 428, 432

A: holding law enforcement request for identification not tantamount to seizure finding no constitutional violation when law enforcement conduct consisted simply of questioning employees and arresting those they had probable cause to believe were unlawfully present
B: holding that law enforcement commission was a benefit of employment
C: holding that a question about present employment in field of law enforcement did not trigger disclosure of past employment in field of law enforcement
D: holding that state law enforcement agencies fall under prosecutors control for purposes of rule 151 disclosure
C.