With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Alexander, 240 Kan. 273, 729 P.2d 1126, 1135-36 (1986); Babin, 319 So.2d at 380; Erdman v. State, 315 Md. 46, 553 A.2d 244, 250 (1989); Commonwealth v. Biancardi, 656 N.E.2d 1234, 1234 (Mass.1995); Campbell, 515 S.W.2d at 456; Blake v. State, 121 Nev. 779, 121 P.3d 567, 575-76 (2005) (en banc) (stating that the instruction should be given, but a failure to do so does not warraiit reversal unless prejudice is shown); State v. Lister, 122 N.H. 603, 448 A.2d 395, 399 (1982) (citing Novosel v. Helgemoe, 118 N.H. 115, 384 A.2d 124, 130 (1978)); State v. Krol, 68 N.J. 236, 344 A.2d 289, 304-05 (1975); People v. Hays, 132 A.D.2d 620, 517 N.Y.S.2d 775, 777 (1987); State v. Hammonds, 290 N.C. 1, 224 S at 1135-36 (approving of the instruction required by statute); Babin, 319 So.2d at 380 (<HOLDING>); Campbell, 515 S.W.2d at 456 (recognizing that

A: holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction
B: holding the fairly explicit dictate of the louisiana criminal code required the instruction as opposed to earlier cases such as state v plaisance 252 la 212 210 so2d 323 32627 1968 which held such an instruction was unnecessary
C: holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given
D: holding that it was prejudicial error to fail to give such a cautionary instruction even where the defendant did not object at trial to the lack of such an instruction when the accomplice testimony was uncorroborated
B.