With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a variety of prescription medications on 22-23 August 2006. As a result, “the probative value of’ evidence relating to the seizure of prescription medications at the time of Defendant’s 10 February 2005 arrest “depends upon [his] having in fact committed the prior alleged offense.” Scott, 331 N.C. at 41, 413 S.E.2d at 788. Finally, “[e]vidence of other crimes is admissible when it tends to establish a common plan or sche iscellaneous bottles and a collection of unidentified pills would not tend to show the existence of such a common scheme or plan. Thus, “the probative value of’ evidence relating to items seized as part of Defendant’s 10 February 2005 arrest “depends upon [his] having in fact committed the prior alleged offense.” Scott, 331 N.C. at 41, 413 S.E.2 S.E.2d 475, 477 (1994) (<HOLDING>). After careful consideration, we are unable to

A: holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt
B: holding that in a felonious breaking or entering and possession of housebreaking implements case the erroneous admission of evidence that the defendant had committed a similar breaking or entering on another occasion for which he was later acquitted constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt
C: holding that the erroneous admission in a misdemeanor larceny case of evidence elicited on crossexamination that the defendant had been detained in another store resulting in charges for which she was later acquitted was harmless given the overwhelming evidence against the defendant
D: holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt
B.