With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". corroborating evidence existed with respect to the Ripp burglary and the Twin Anchors burglaries. B. Ripp burglary. “A defendant’s possession of property stolen in the alleged offense is corroborative evidence.” Dickerson, 313 N.W.2d at 529. Here, two witnesses in addition to the accomplice, Johnson’s and Bugely’s then-girlfriends, testified Bugely possessed a ruby ring taken from the Ripp residence within one-half hour after the burglary. This evidence is corroborative. Although Bugely argues he had an innocent explanation for his possession of this property (Johnson gave him the ring), that testimony went to the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence — a question for the jury. It does not detract from the existence of the corroborating evidence. See Cuevas, 281 N.W.2d at 631 (<HOLDING>). Therefore the trial court did not err in

A: holding court does not assess the strength of the corroborative evidence that is for the jury
B: holding that where a party has made a prior statement inconsistent with the one the party seeks to advance at trial a question of credibility arises which is for the jury not the judge to assess
C: holding the preponderaneeoftheevidence standard of review does not require this court to disregard the findings at trial or ignore the fact that the circuit court was in a better position to assess the credibility of the witnesses
D: holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury
A.