Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
There was nothing particularly horrific about the admitted evidence to indicate that the jury would have based its verdict on such emotional considerations. See Maurer, 770 P.2d at 984. Moreover, any prejudicial effect the evidence may have had was outweighed by its highly probative value concerning the very elements of the crime charged which Downs disputed-knowledge and intent. See State v. Kell, 2002 UT 106, ¶ 35, 61 P.3d 1019. The fact that she was living in a house where police had observed activity consistent with drug trafficking and executed a search warrant that yielded controlled substances and drug paraphernalia provided context and made her claim of ignorance about the pink baggie in her pocket considerably less believable. See State v. Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 24, 25 P.3d 985 ; cf. Johnson, 784 P.2d at 1141 ("The
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court did not exceed its judicial discretion in finding that the damages ordered by the jury were excessive and ordering remittitur in a wrongful death action
B. holding that the military judge has considerable discretion to exclude relevant evidence under military rule of evidence 403
C. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the intervention of biological grandparent under section 102004b
D. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to introduce direct evidence of the controlling nature of defendants relationship with the victim
E. holding that the trial court did not exceed its discretion under rule 403 by allowing evidence that provided background for the crime charged
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.