Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the alleged error on appeal. See Brooks v. State, 281 Ga. 514, 516 (640 SE2d 280) (2007). Appellant suggests that these evidentiary issues are subject to review on appeal for “plain error.” However, in criminal cases, plain error review currently is limited to appellate review of alleged errors in the sentencing phase of a trial resulting in the death penalty, see Sharp v. State, 286 Ga. 799, 801 (692 SE2d 325) (2010); to alleged violations of OCGA § 17-8-57, see State v. Gardner, 286 Ga. 633, 634 (690 SE2d 164) (2010); and, since July 1, 2007, to properly asserted errors in jury instructions, see OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32 (718 SE2d 232) (2011). Thus, plain error review does not apply to the evidentiary issue raised in this case. See Brooks, 281 Ga. at 516 . We note that the new Georgia Evidence Code
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plain error review was not available for alleged improperly admitted testimony
B. holding miranda error prejudicial in part because the defense presented testimony it otherwise would not have due to the improperly admitted statements
C. holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt
D. holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless
E. holding that omission was not plain error
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.