Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the victim testified that three men came to her house, kicked the door open, and put a gun to her daughter’s face. Beyond this, the victim testified that she could not remember any more details at the time of trial. As pointed out by the State, this event would qualify as “a matter about which a witness once had knowledge, but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately.” § 90.803(5), Fla. Stat. (2008). Further, the victim identified the written statement as the statement she gave to police on the day of the crime, approximately one hour after the events took place, and testified that she told the police what happened when they came to her house. Given the totality of the circumstances in this case, including that the witness swore to t 998) . These cases are based upon the language of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding court abused its discretion when it excluded psychologists testimony regarding host of identification issues among which was crossracial identification
B. holding that testimony regarding outofcourt identification was inadmissible where the state failed to ask the witnesses about the identification during its direct examination
C. holding that where the opportunity for positive identification is good and not weakened by prior failure to identify and the witness is positive in his identification even after crossexamination identification need not be received with caution
D. holding that trial court erred when it admitted outofcourt identification of defendant when the witness who made the identification was never asked about defendants identity at trial
E. holding that agents testimony as to witnesss identification was not hearsay
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.