Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and prior confrontations they had had.” 3 . The State argues that the prosecutor's statement that Appellant provoked the fight by calling the deceased and his family “niggas” was a reasonable inference from Officer Pate's testimony that Appellant admitted he had used racial slurs when he first spoke to the deceased. I cannot agree. First, Officer Pate did not testify that "niggas” was the racial slur Appellant used. Unfortunately, many ethnophaulisms exist but most people consider this one exceptionally offensive and inflammatory. Appellant’s concession that he used racial slurs does not support an inference that he used this particular one. Second, neither Officer Pat .-Texarkana 2014, pet. ref'd) (same); Jimenez v. State, 298 S.W.3d 203, 214 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2009, pet. ref’d) ; see Rogers v. State, 725 S.W.2d 350, 358
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing emergency exception
B. recognizing the public interest exception
C. recognizing exception under state constitution
D. recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception
E. recognizing exception
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.