Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
before commencement of the trial. [15] The omnibus date in this case was ultimately set for November 6, 2013. Thus, under the statute, Zamani was required to file his notice of an insanity defense by October 17, 2013. The court held a final pretrial hearing on April 16, 2014, at which it heard argument on the State’s motion in limine, and at the hearing Zamani’s counsel verbally indicated that Zamani stated that he believes he is insane. [16] As Zamani attempted a late filing of the required notice, the trial court had discretion whether to accept it. See Ankney v. State, 825 N.E.2d 965, 970 (Ind.Ct. App.2005) (“Ankney attempted a late filing of the required notice, and, thus, the trial court had discretion whether to accept it.”) (citing Eveler v. State, 524 N.E.2d 9, 11 (Ind.1988) ), trans. denied. [17] The State’s motion in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that after the omnibus date the trial courts discretion controlled and such discretion is exercisable upon a showing of good cause by a defendant who has missed the deadline
B. holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion
C. recognizing that in the 1993 amendments to the rules courts have been accorded the discretion to enlarge the 120day period even in the absence of showing good cause
D. holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion
E. holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.