Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
at issue, or its specific application, is one with which an average juror might not be sufficiently familiar, or if the trial court determines that the expert testimony would “assist the jury in comprehending the evidence and determining issues of fact.” Odom, supra, 116 N.J. at 70, 560 A.2d 1198. The proposed expert witness must be adequately qualified and possess sufficient knowledge and experience to express an opinion and explain its basis to the jury. Id. at 71, 560 A.2d 1198; Kelly, supra, 97 N.J. at 208, 478 A.2d 364. Ordinar 7 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1990); United States v. Diaz, 878 F.2d 608, 616-18 (2d Cir.) (sustaining admission of expert-witness testimony concerning characteristics of narcotics “stash pad” and providing interpretation of financial records seized a 46-48 (1988) ; State v. Avila, 166 Conn. 569, 353 A.2d 776,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a prior conviction for using a communications device to facilitate the distribution of cocaine was admissible under rule 404b to prove that the defendant had the requisite intent to distribute cocaine
B. holding that purity of 3644 did not disqualify a drug as crack in light of the chemists testimony that he had previously tested crack of lowerthantypical purity
C. holding admissible police officers expert testimony that seized cocaine of eightythree percent purity would be cut with lactose to achieve lesser purity prior to streetlevel distribution
D. holding future dangerousness expert testimony to be admissible
E. holding that simple possession of cocaine is not lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.