Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
13 New Jersey courts have used res gestae as an evidentiary doctrine since 1819. See Ogden v. Gibbons, 5 N.J.L. 612, 631-32 (Sup.Ct.1819) (admitting hearsay evidence as res gestae of charged trespass because evidence was necessary to establish motive); Den v. Vancleve, 5 N.J.L. 695, 758 (Sup.Ct.1819) (explaining res gestae as exception to rule against hearsay). 14 Res gestae also has been cited as the explanation for admitting relevant evidence. See, e.g., State v. Deegan, 133 N.J.L. 263, 44 A.2d 104 (E. & A.1945) (permitting photographs of decedent and family to be admitted as res gestae); State v. Weiner, 101 N.J.L. 46, 49, 127 A. 582 (Sup.Ct.1925) (admitting as res gestae evidence of skid marks at accident scene); State v. Hill, 65 N.J.L. 626, 632, 47 A. 814 (E. & A.1900) . 15 See Long, supra, 173 N.J. at 166, 801 A.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible
B. holding that hearsay evidence may be considered on summary judgment if the same evidence would be admissible in another form at trial
C. holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial
D. holding that coats presence in room at time of murder would be admissible as res gestae
E. recognizing that a 11 evidence must be relevant to be admissible
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.