With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". That legislative inaction, in and of itself, is entitled to little weight is evident from a review of several decisions of this court in which we have overruled our own earlier statutory interpretations despite legislative inaction. See, e.g., Magoon, 75 Haw. at 185-86, 858 P.2d at 722-23 (explicitly overruling In re Application of Kaimuki Land Co., 35 Haw. 254 (1939), because it failed to correctly review and analyze the statutory estoppel language of Revised Laws of Hawai'i (RLH) 1935 § 5032); State v. Dow, 72 Haw. 56, 59-61, 806 P.2d 402, 404-05 (1991) (overruling in part State v. Wacker, 70 Haw. 332, 770 P.2d 420 (1989), because “the statutory analysis employed in Wacker [was] no longer applicable”); State v. Batangan, 71 Haw. 552, 559-63, 799 P.2d 48, 52-54 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Association of Owners of Kukui Plaza v.

A: holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence
B: holding that rules 702 and 704 of the hawaii rules of evidence do not allow expert witnesses to opine as to the credibility of alleged child sex abuse victims and overruling state v kim 64 haw 598 645 p2d 1330 1982 to the extent that it held otherwise
C: holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery
D: recognizing that the federal rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings
B.