With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)); accord Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). 43 . Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Mirquet, 914 P.2d 1144, 1147 (Utah 1996). 44 . Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 324, 114 S.Ct. 1526 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Mirquet, 914 P.2d at 1147. 45 . See Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138; Salt Lake City v. Carner, 664 P.2d 1168, 1170 (Utah 1983). 46 . Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 325, 114 S.Ct. 1526. 47 . See Mirquet, 914 P.2d at 1148 (indicating that accusatory questioning is relevant, but does not necessarily establish a coercive environment); Carner, 664 P.2d at 1170 (<HOLDING>); State v. Snyder, 860 P.2d 351, 357 (Utah

A: holding that lab reports are accusatory and subject to confrontation clause
B: holding that the rejection of the exculpatory hearsay testimony of a government witness was in error particularly in view that accusatory hearsay was admitted
C: recognizing import of accusatory statements
D: holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant
C.