Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
therefore, our review is limited to a determination of whether the admission of this evidence amounted to “plain error.” “Plain error” has been defined as including error so grave as to deny a fundamental right of the defendant so that, absent the error, the jury would have reached a different result. State v. Robinson, 330 N.C. 1, 22, 409 S.E.2d 288, 300 (1991). The Confrontation Clause prohibits testimonial statements from an unavailable witness being presented at trial without the defendant having an opportunity to cross-examine the witness prior to trial. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50-52, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 187 (2004). It is clear that Ms. Charlesworth’s report was testimonial in nature. See Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, — U.S. —, —, 174 L. Ed. 2d 314, 321-22 (2009) . There was no evidence that defendant had an
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that lab reports are accusatory and subject to confrontation clause
B. holding that testimonial statements are subject to the requirements of the confrontation clause even if they are otherwise admissible under the hearsay exception for excited utterances
C. holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay
D. holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements
E. holding that reports of chemical analyses were testimonial in nature and subject to the confrontation clause requirements
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.