With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Comment notes, this rule is the codification of the supreme court’s adoption of Rule 606(b), Fed.R.Evid., in State v. Blackwell, 664 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tenn.1984). If the defendant shows that the jury has been subjected to extraneous prejudicial information or improper influence, then we presume prejudice and the burden shifts to the state to rebut this presumption by either explaining the exposure or proving that it was harmless. Id. at 689. The information that the jurors provided the defendant cannot be offered in court unless it qualifies under one of the three exceptions in 606(b). In the present case, unless the information is extraneous, it is inadmissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 606(b). “Extraneous means ‘coming from without.’ ” State v. Coker, 746 S.W.2d 167, 171 (Tenn.1987) (<HOLDING>). The trial court in this case questioned

A: holding that the jurors alleged discussion about the possibility that the defendant would hire someone to kill them was inadmissible because the defendant had not shown that the jury learned of the threat from an outside source
B: holding that discussion among jurors of their agreement to the defendants guilt during trial and before deliberation was not such misconduct as can be shown by the affidavit of a juror
C: holding that the defendant could not establish prejudice for trial counsels failure to hire an expert when the experts testimony would not have changed the nature of the states evidence
D: holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury
A.