Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
rob him, and where the trial court permitted the State to call witnesses who testified that Mr. Brown was not a drug dealer. We agree. We are mindful that pursuant to section 90.404(1), Florida Statutes (2004), evidence of a victim’s character is “inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion.” In the instant case, however, the defense did not seek to introduce evidence that Mr. Brown was a drug dealer as an attack upon his character. The defense sought to elicit this testimony to corroborate the defendant’s testimony that he did not go to Mr. Brown’s home to rob him, but instead went there to purchase drugs, and while he was there, Mr. Brown attacked him after he rebuffed his sexual advances. See Villella v. State, 833 So.2d 192, 196-97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Further, even if the evidence was
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it was error to exclude corroborative evidence where evidence was vital to defendants defense
B. holding that it was harmless error for the trial court to exclude testimony regarding other insolvent companies
C. holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony
D. holding in all cases that where the evidence of guilt was sufficient any error in the exclusion of lastminute evidence and testimony was harmless error
E. holding impeachment evidence was not merely cumulative where the withheld evidence was of a different character than evidence already known to the defense
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.