With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". State v. Huber, 361 N.W.2d 236, 238-39 (N.D.1985); State v. Rogers, 17 Ohio St.3d 174, 478 N.E.2d 984, 992 (1985), judgment vacated on other grounds, 474 U.S. 1002, 106 S.Ct. 518, 88 L.Ed.2d 452 (1985); Nauni v. State, 670 P.2d 126, 134 (Okla.Crim.App. 1983); State v. Arpin, 122 R.I. 643, 410 A.2d 1340, 1352 (1980); State v. Huiett, 271 S.C. 205, 246 S.E.2d 862, 864 (1978) (allowing a curative instruction only); State v. Martin, 683 N.W.2d 399, 407 (S.D.2004); Robison, 888 S.W.2d at 476-77; State v. Percy, 146 Vt. 475, 507 A.2d 955, 957-58 (1986) (discussing and reaffirming the Vermont Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Smith, 136 Vt. 520, 396 A.2d 126, 129 (1978), to refuse, as a general rule, to require the instruction); Kitze v. Commonwealth, 246 Va. 283, 435 S.E.2d 583, 586 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Spruill v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 475, 271

A: holding that a prior acquittal does not preclude the admission of evidence of a defendants other alleged crimes in a prosecution for the bank robbery on the basis of collateral estoppel principles because    the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case
B: holding that failure to give a curative instruction if the prosecution made incorrect statements regarding the consequences of an insanity acquittal can result in the case being overturned
C: holding that the trial court had the authority to give an instruction if it deemed such a measure appropriate
D: holding that where an objection is sustained and curative instruction given and no further relief such as a mistrial additional curative instruction or striking of the offending comment is requested there is nothing for the appellate court to review
B.