Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
language, the purpose of the statute, the evil to be corrected, the legislative history, and the pertinent case law that has applied the statute or similar enactments.” McKnight v. State, 906 So.2d 368, 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Because we base our decision on language that was not part of the 1985 statute construed in Dixon, we do not certify conflict with that opinion. Addressing another issue on appeal, we note that Hile’s in-court description of his conversation with Longval on the videotape was admissible over a hearsay objection. Longval’s statements to Hile were not hearsay under section 90.801(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2004), because they described and gave significance to ambiguous acts, her conduct on the videotape. See Stotler v. State, 834 So.2d 940, 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) . Reversed and remanded. GUNTHER and HAZOURI,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a trial court may allow jurors to review a videotape of a witness previous statements under circumstances that will assure that such statements are not given undue weight or emphasis
B. holding that a witness could testify about statements made to him by a police department investigator because the statements were an admission by partyopponent and were thus not excluded by the hearsay rule
C. holding that defense witnesss incourt recitation of defendants out of court statements which where inaudible on surveillance videotape were not hearsay because they were statements describing ambiguous acts or verbal parts of acts
D. holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule where the defendant was able to confront and crossexamine the witness who claimed that the statements at issue were made
E. holding that exclusion of hearsay statements violated due process even though statements were not admissible under mississippi law which did not recognize declarations against penal interest as a exception to the rule against hearsay
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.