With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". which included reports from the dates of each offense, notations of Detective Pennica’s meetings with Figuero after each buy as well as a summary of what Figuero told Detective Pennica during each meeting. Defendant was provided with notice of the substance of Figuero’s statements, and he did not suffer prejudice or unfair surprise as a result of the admission of Figuero’s testimony. See State v. Murillo, 349 N.C. 573, 584-85, 509 S.E.2d 752, 758-59, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 838, 145 L. Ed. 2d 87 (1998) (distinguishing substance from form of discovery and reasoning that for purposes of our discovery statutes, a defendant must simply be provided with the substance or essence of a witness’s oral statement); see also State v. Toler, 189 N.C. App. 212, 657 S.E.2d 446 (2008) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we hold that this argument is

A: holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care
B: holding that where a defendant has notice of the substance of a witness statement made to law enforcement the trial court has discretion to admit testimony under nc gen stat  15a903al
C: holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness testimony not available from other sources
D: holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case
B.