With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 197-198 (Fla.1997) (<HOLDING>). SHARP, W., PALMER, and LAWSON, JJ.,

A: holding that prior consistent statements are admissible under rule 801d1b only if offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive
B: holding that trial court erred in allowing lawenforcement officers testimony as to victims prior consistent statement when there was no affirmative charge of recent fabrication and the state elicited the testimony during its direct examination of the witness
C: holding witnesss prior consistent statement admissible in part because defense counsel implied during opening statement that witness had fabricated her testimony
D: recognizing prior consistent statements are considered nonhearsay if the following conditions are met the person who made the prior consistent statement testifies at trial and is subject to crossexamination concerning that statement and the statement is offered to rebut an express or implied charge of improper influence motive or recent fabrication citing rodriguez v state 609 so2d 493 499 fla1992
D.