With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". October 4, 2011, defense counsel informed the district court that Mr. Williams was currently serving United States military duty in Iraq and requested that the district court recall the capias, which the district court recalled. In making that request, defense counsel assured the district court that “as soon as [the defendant] Mr. Williams comes into the United States, he will come into court.” Despite this assurance, Mr. Williams failed to come into court until December 4, 2013. As a result, we find that prescription was interrupted until that date; and the State had until December 4, 2015 to bring Mr. Williams to trial. Alternatively, prescription remained interrupted until Mr. Williams notified the State of his current whereabouts. See Romar, 07-2140 at pp. 6-8, 985 So.2d at 726-27 (<HOLDING>). The record reflects that Mr. Williams failed

A: holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant
B: holding that despite failure to appear for trial default could not be entered without notice to defendant
C: holding that la ccrp art 579 a3 does not impose on the state the in affirmative duty to search for a defendant who has failed to appear for trial after receiving actual notice
D: holding that police officers have no affirmative duty to search out favorable evidence for the defendant
C.