With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". argument. Id. Thus, the Alabama Supreme Court found no plain error in Snyder, because the trial court did give limiting instructions to the jury, which were proper instructions, and informed them that they could only consider the evidence of those convictions as it related to the defendant’s credibility. “Here, the trial court properly instructed the jury as to the purpose of the evidence of Snyder’s prior conviction. If an instruction clearly informs the jury of the sole purpose of prior-conviction evidence — the witness’s credibility — it is reasonable to assume that the jury would not use the evidence for any other purpose. See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120, 116 S.Ct. 928, 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Unlike the circumstances in Ex parte Minor,

A: holding that jurors were presumed to follow instructions similar to those in the instant case
B: holding that a jury is presumed to follow a judges instructions
C: recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions
D: recognizing the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions
C.