With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 E2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018, 103 S. Ct. 381 (1982)). Generally speaking, the rule provides that a criminal defendant is entitled to a new trial if the defendant demonstrates that the jury probably would have returned a different verdict had the error not occurred. State v. Walker, 316 N.C. 33, 39, 340 S.E.2d 80, 83 (1986). Since that time, our appellate courts have applied the plain error standard using several different formulations. See, e.g., State v. Towe, _ N.C. App. _, _, 707 S.E.2d 770, 775 (finding plain error because “it [was] highly plausible that the jury could have reached a different result”), disc. rev. allowed, 365 N.C. 202, 709 S.E.2d 599 (2012); State v. Wright, _ N.C. App. _, _, 708 S.E.2d 112, 121 (<HOLDING>), disc. rev. denied, 365 N.C. 200, 710 S.E.2d

A: holding that party asserting plain error must show a reasonable probability that but for the error claimed the result of the proceeding would have been different
B: holding that inadmissible testimony did not rise to level of plain error because the overwhelming evidence against defendant leads us to conclude that the error committed did not cause the jury to reach a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached
C: holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error
D: holding there was not plain error because a different result probably would not have been reached absent the trial courts alleged error
D.