Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
§ 8C-1, Rule 403. In State v. Scott, 331 N.C. 39, 413 S.E.2d 787 (1992), the Supreme Court stated in requiring the exclusion of evidence otherwise admissible pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403, that: [W]here the probative value of such evidence depends upon defendant’s having in fact committed the prior alleged offense, his acquittal of the offense in an earlier trial so divests the evidence of probative value that, as a matter of law, it cannot outweigh the tendency of such evidence unfairly to prejudice the defendant. Such evidence is thus barred by N.C. R dence tending to show that Defendant possessed various prescription drugs which he was acquitted of possessing. State v. Allen, 144 N.C. App. 386, 388, 548 S.E.2d 554, 555 (2001) . After careful review of the evidence and the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a sua sponte dismissal of the charges during trial was not an acquittal that barred retrial based on double jeopardy
B. recognizing the specific need for an appropriate double jeopardy review when an appeal is taken by the state from a lower courts dismissal of the criminal charges
C. holding that a delinquency proceeding places a juvenile in jeopardy for purposes of the double jeopardy clause
D. holding that the dismissal of criminal charges for evidentiary insufficiency is an acquittal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause
E. holding that the trial courts dismissal of the charges after jeopardy had attached based on the prosecution witnesses failure to appear was not an acquittal and therefore double jeopardy did not prevent the court from reconsidering its decision and reinstating the charges
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.