Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
properly admitted as evidence of a common scheme or plan. We believe the trial court properly admitted the victim’s testimony as evidence of a common scheme or plan. See Clasby, 385 S.C. at 155, 682 S.E.2d at 896 (“Where there is a close degree of similarity between the crime charged and the prior bad act, both this [c]ourt and the [c]ourt of [ajppeals have held prior bad acts are admissible to demonstrate a common scheme or plan.”) (quoting State v. Gaines, 880 S.C. 23, 30, 667 S.E.2d 728, 731 (2008)). The victim’s testimony in this case established the incidents of abuse occurred in the same manner and in the same locations as the conduct that formed the basis of the charge of CSC with a minor brought against Berry. See State v. Whitener, 228 S.C. 244, 265, 89 S.E.2d 701, 711 (1955) ; State v. McClellan, 283 S.C. 389, 392, 323
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the high level of similarity between the charged crime and prior bad acts necessary to prove common scheme or plan does not require evidence of common features to show a unique method of committing the crime
B. recognizing that the common scheme or plan exception is generally applied in cases involving sexual crimes where evidence of acts prior and subsequent to the act charged in the indictment is held admissible as tending to show continued illicit intercourse between the same parties
C. holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment
D. holding that where the date of the offense is not an element of the charge  a variance between the indictment date and the proof at trial is not fatal so long as the acts charged were committed within the statute of limitations period and prior to the return date of the indictment
E. holding that the striking similarity between the acts alleged in the indictment and the prior incidents rendered incidents that occurred fifteen years prior to the acts alleged in the indictment relevant and admissible under rule 404b
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.