Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
evidence were introduced or victim was asked about it, we don’t have any way to resolve that event or to give any meaningful way for the jury to evaluate the event without having witnesses to either corroborate or impeach victim’s statements.” In the end, the court expressed its view that asking the victim about the California incident “would not be helpful to the jury” and it precluded defendant from questioning her about that incident or introducing other evidence about it. That ruling was not an abuse of discretion. A trial court has authority to preclude this type of cross-examination on allegedly false prior accusations when it reasonably determines that exploration of the previous incident would essentially require an unhelpful trial within a trial. See Arellano, 149 Or App at 91 ; LeClair, 83 Or App at 131 (noting that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that risk of unfair prejudice is diminished in bench trial
B. recognizing that proof of extreme delay establishes prejudice
C. recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings
D. recognizing that a delay in proceedings to explore a collateral matter can create a risk of prejudice
E. holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.