Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
argument that the circuit court erred in refusing to reveal the informant’s identity, we find the circuit court acted within its discretion. See State v. Humphries, 354 S.C. 87, 90, 579 S.E.2d 613, 615 (2003) (“[I]f the informant is an active participant in the criminal transaction and/or a material witness on the issue of guilt or innocence, disclosure of his identity may be required depending upon the facts and circumstances. On the other hand, an informant’s identity need not be disclosed where he possesses only a peripheral knowledge of the crime or is a mere ‘tipster’ who supplies a lead to law enforcement.”); id. at 90, 579 S.E.2d at 614-15 (“The burden is upon the defendant to show the facts and circumstances entitling him to the disclosure.”); id. at 90, 579 S.E.2d at 615 . 2. As to Pradubsri’s argument that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction
B. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify
C. holding that trial court abused its discretion in ordering disclosure of informants identity based solely on defense counsels unsworn representations that disclosure would be relevant and helpful to his defense
D. holding a trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to require disclosure of an informants name
E. holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.