Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
his more particular two-fold argument that it was the testimony about the specific crime— possession of a stolen firearm — and the fact it was also firearm related that made Officer Brumfield’s testimony more prejudicial than probative. As to this, we are mindful that Officer Brumfield only testified on direct that Grindle had been arrested and, when he was arrested, a .45-caliber pistol was recovered but did not match the murder weapon. And Grindle did not object to this testimony. It was Grindle’s attorney, not the State, that brought up the underlying reason for his arrest — that he allegedly possessed a stolen pistol. Because Grindle’s lawyer was the one who elicited the testimony, Grindle cannot argue now it was improperly introduced. See Rubenstein, 941 So.2d at 755 (¶¶ 52-53) . ¶58. Despite Grindle’s opening the door to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the district courts improper admission of an unauthenticated registration statement was harmless because the proponent of the registration statement later properly authenticated the statement in a motion to reconsider
B. holding that improper statement was rendered harmless because the district court sustained the defendants objection  and admonished the jury to disregard the statement
C. holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen
D. holding appellate argument that statement violated rule 404b was improper because it was the defendant who elicited the statement at trial
E. holding that it was error for the court to rule that the statement of mortgage debt was incorrect prior to submission of the auditors statement of account
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.