With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". thirty-percent stockholder who was not implicated in setting the fire. Pursuant to an order entered on BLT’s motion, an appraisal of BLT’s fire loss was conducted in accordance with the terms of its insurance policy. BLT’s personal property destroyed by the fire was assessed at $102,784.00 and its property “improvements and betterments” destroyed by the fire, at $77,105.00. The assessment of BLT’s entire fire loss totaled $179,889.00. At the civil trial, a jury was waived. The trial judge recognized that the pendency of Wasyluk’s appeal from his criminal conviction precluded use of that conviction as proof that he was responsible for setting the fire. See Sorbello v. Mangino, 108 N.J.Eq. 292, 295, 155 A. 6 (Ch. 1931); cfi State v. Eddy, 189 N.J.Super. 22, 458 A.2d 522 (Law Div.1982) (<HOLDING>). However, the judge accepted the guilty

A: holding that prior convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana are admissible to impeach defendant
B: holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility
C: holding that a witnesss prior inconsistent statement to an officer could be used to impeach her
D: holding that conviction on appeal is not admissible to impeach witnesss credibility
D.