Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the state would choose to prosecute at trial put defendant at a disadvantage as he tried to defend against the charges. That is because the state’s method of charging, combined with a late election, allows the state to present evidence of a defendant’s multiple bad acts and then to select, mid-trial, which of those will be considered as a charge for the jury to decide. That approach to charging undermines efforts by Oregon courts to prevent “other acts” evidence from being introduced in contravention of the principle in OEC 404(3) that such evidence “is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith.” See, e.g., State v. Leistiko, 352 Or 172, 184-85, 282 P3d 857, modified on recons, 352 Or 622, 292 P3d 522 (2012) . In this case, the trial court did not know
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that absent a defendants stipulation the state must first introduce evidence sufficient to allow the jury to find that the charged act occurred before the trial court can admit uncharged misconduct evidence to prove intent
B. holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff
C. holding that the government may not be permitted to introduce other crimes evidence in its case in chief to prove intent unless the defense disputes intent during opening statements
D. holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified
E. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to introduce direct evidence of the controlling nature of defendants relationship with the victim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.