With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". items, the District Court granted the State’s motion in limine which precluded him from offering evidence of mental disease or defect at trial. This Court previously affirmed Montana’s reciprocal discovery provisions against attack on the same constitutional grounds in State ex rel. Carkulis v. District Court (1987), 229 Mont. 265, 746 P.2d 604, appeal dismissed, Carkulis v. Montana (1988), 487 U.S. 1201, 108 S. Ct. 2839, 101 L. Ed. 2d 877. We likewise upheld Montana’s discovery statutes in subsequent cases. See State v. Miller (1988), 231 Mont. 497, 757 P.2d 1275 (prohibiting defendant from offering testimony of a private investigator for impeachment because defendant failed to disclose the private investigator’s report); State v. Kills on Top (1990), 241 Mont. 378, 787 P.2d 336 (<HOLDING>). In Carkulis, the defendant refused to

A: holding that even if the district court erred in sustaining the objection the error was harmless because the witness answered the question in the negative and the court did not strike his answer
B: holding that plain error review applies when a party fails to raise a claim before the district court
C: holding that plain error review applies to objections that were not raised when the district court asked the appropriate question at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing
D: holding that defendant could not claim error in part because he did not request the district court to review the witness reports in question which would allow the district court to review the statements and excise incriminating information
D.