With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the reliability of her testimony or offend Davis’s right to confrontation. ¶ 23 Finally, the State has adequately demonstrated case-specific necessity for the requested accommodation. See Smith, 308 P.3d at 138-39 (requiring an adequate showing of necessity and stating that mere inconvenience to a witness is insufficient under Craig to supplant face-to-face testimony); see also State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla, 239 Ariz. 314, 317, ¶¶ 9-11, 371 P.3d 642, 645, 1 CA-SA16-0017, 1 CA-SA 16-0027, 2016 WL 1063284, at *3, ¶¶ 9-11 (Ariz.App. Mar. 17, 2016) (concluding the heightened standard of clear and convincing evidence of an individualized and case-specific need for an accommodation applied to minor victim witnesses under A.R.S. § 13-4253 (2010)); cf. Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d at 506-07 (<HOLDING>). In this case, E.P. is beyond the State’s

A: holding that the mere determination that removal was improper does not require a district court to award attorneys fees
B: holding that harm must be sufficiently severe and rise above mere harassment
C: holding that mere negligence does not implicate the right to due process
D: recognizing that most courts seem to require some impediment to testifying beyond mere unwillingness to travel and noting that a general consensus exists that mere convenience efficiency and costsaving are not sufficiently important
D.