Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
890, 893 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). Abuse of discretion occurs when a decision by the trial court is “so clearly wrong as to lie outside the zone within which reasonable persons might disagree.” Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d 667, 682 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). Public records and reports, in any form, of public offices or agencies setting forth matters observed pursuant to a duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report are not hearsay, even if the declarant is available as a witness. Tex.R. Evid. 803(8)(B). An exception controls criminal cases, however, in which records and reports concerning matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel are inadmissible hearsay. See id.; Cole v. State, 839 S.W.2d 798, 804-07 & n. 8 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (op. on reh’g) ; Bermen v. State, 798 S.W.2d 8, 12
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an objection on hearsay grounds did not preserve for appeal an exception to the hearsay rule that was not specifically raised
B. holding that fulltime forensic chemists employed by texas department of public safety were lawenforcement personnel whose reports were not admissible under either the publicrecord hearsay exception rule 8038b or the businessrecord hearsay exception rule 8036
C. holding that records referring to defendant as escaped prisoner and escape risk were not admissible because exception for public records rule 8038b specifically excluded them as records of law enforcement personnel further holding that specific exclusion controlled over businessrecord hearsay exception rule 8036
D. holding that victims statements were hearsay admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and constitutionally permissible under ohio v roberts citations omitted
E. holding that evidence of customer inquiries is admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.