Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
attacked Edwards’s testimony based on the deal he struck with the State. While counsel also sought to impeach Prince’s and Barksdale’s testimony, he did not attempt to attack the testimony given by Bridgett or Rainey. Although the defense brought out conflicting and impeachment evidence via cross-examination, this evidence had little or no bearing on the issue of Russell's intent in the Fast Freddy’s offense. Cf. Siqueiros v. State, 685 S.W.2d 68, 71 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (recognizing cross-examination of State’s witnesses can raise issue of identity). The State provided probative evidence on the issue of Russell’s intent in the Fast Freddy’s offense through numerous witnesses, and this evidence of intent was not seriously undermined by the defense. Accord DeLeon, 77 S.W.3d at 313-14 . b. Evidence of S & A Offense The State also
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party
B. holding defense crossexamination did not raise issue of intent or identity
C. holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue
D. holding evidence of other crimes inadmissible when identity is not at issue
E. holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.