With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". So.2d 122, 124-25 (Fla.1987), our supreme court held that “in cases where the defendant is accused of a sexual battery committed in the familial setting, evidence of a prior sexual battery committed within the familial setting is admissible under the Williams rule because this evidence is relevant to corroborate the victim’s testimony.” McLean v. State, 934 So.2d 1248, 1256-57 (Fla.2006) (footnote omitted). After Heuring was decided, the Legislature enacted section 90.404(2)(b), see ch. 2001-221, § 1, Laws of Fla., which “broadly provides[ ] that evidence of [a] defendant’s commission of other acts of child molestation is admissible regardless of whether the charged and collateral offenses occurred in the familial context or whether they share any similarity.” McLean, 934 So.2d at 1259 (<HOLDING>). But the present case has nothing to do with

A: holding that the state must prove voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence citing brewer v state 386 so2d 232 236 fla1980
B: recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state
C: holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court
D: recognizing section 904042b abrogated limits on the use of similar fact evidence in child molestation cases that the supreme court had recognized in heuring state v rawls 649 so2d 1350 fla1994 and saffor v state 660 so2d 668 fla1995
D.