With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". since she testified live at trial. See CP at 778. The city also argues this case is analogous to Noltie, where we held gruesome photographs were properly admitted so long as they were relevant and accurate. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d at 852. We do not see the comparison, since in this case, the city admits the most gruesome and repetitive aspect of the 911 tape was not accurate. See Revised Opening Br. of Resp’t/Cross-Appellant at 44. ¶20 The use of the caller’s assertion, repeated no less than five times during the call, that someone had been decapitated appears calculated to inflame the passions of the jury, especially since it was conceded to be untrue. CP at 782-84; Revised Opening Br. of Resp’t/Cross-Appellant at 44; see also State v. Pendergrass, 179 Mont. 106, 111-12, 586 P.2d 691 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Although the city claims the 911 tape could

A: holding the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting several photographs of a murder victims body
B: holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact
C: holding admissible testimony of the victims daughter regarding a telephone call from the defendant to the victim hours before the victims death and the victims emotions following the telephone call where defendant claimed accident
D: holding trial court abused its discretion in admitting rape victims 911 call because the emotional and nearly incoherent outpourings of the victim in the immediate aftermath of a violent crime necessarily induced a feeling of outrage against the defendant
D.