With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not be supported by any evidence”) (emphasis added). Daniel’s point is denied, and the full-order of protection is affirmed. GARYW. LYNCH, J. — CONCURS WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., J.— CONCURS 1 . Because the parties share the same last name, we will refer to them by their given names to avoid confusion. In doing so, we do not intend any disrespect or familiarity. 2 . Two additional brothers have become enmeshed in these quarrels — one on the "side" of Steven and the other on the side of Daniel. 3 . All statutory references are to RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013. 4 . Daniel concedes in his brief that, absent a defense of justification, "his actions constitute an act of abuse [as defined] under [s]ection 455.010[ (1),]” and he relies on McAlister v. Strohmeyer, 395 S.W.3d 546, 554 (Mo.App.W.D.2013) (<HOLDING>). Steven claims in his brief that Daniel waived

A: holding that district court error was not clear error in denying petition for mandamus
B: holding no error was committed in denying an order of protection when the trial court found the respondents actions justified under the law
C: holding that no error was committed where issue of whether the defendant had committed another crime was injected into the trial by the codefendant but was immediately followed by the trial courts instructions to the jury that only the counts listed on the indictment be considered
D: holding that the trial court committed no abuse of discretion in denying the appointment of the defendants requested expert as there was no undue prejudice to the defendant because the defendants claim on the predicted effect of the experts testimony was purely speculative
B.