With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Before trial, defendant objected to the state’s proposed use of Wilcox’s testimony to demonstrate that defendant’s physical condition corroborated the BAC test result. The trial court ruled before trial that the testimony was admissible. At trial, the prosecutor asked Wilcox in the state’s case in chief: “Q. The .081 blood alcohol content, was that consistent with the defendant’s behavior that you observed personally? “A. Yes, it was.” On appeal, defendant assigns Wilcox’s trial testimony as error. His argument under his assignment presents two issues: (1) whether the evidence is admissible under ORS 813.010(1)(a); and (2) whether Wilcox was qualified to express the opinion that defendant’s behavior was consistent with his BAC. See State v. Jacobs, 109 Or App 444, 819 P2d 766 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Arguably, the case law is in conflict in

A: holding that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to pose a hypothetical seenario to an expert witness consisting of the exact actions of which the defendant was accused in order to ask the expert to give an opinion as to whether the  actions were illegal emphasis omitted
B: recognizing officers qualification to offer nonscientific expert opinion of intoxication based on training and experience
C: holding that an arresting officers participation in numerous duii investigations was insufficient to qualify him as an expert to give an opinion based on observable signs of intoxication as to the defendants bac
D: recognizing that the expert was particularly qualified to give his opinion
C.