Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
other acts providing there is a ‘reasonable’ basis ... to ... permit[] an inference that defendant had an aberrant sexual propensity that makes it more probable that he or she committed the sexual offense charged”). ¶ 15 Nor were the offenses so remote in time that evidence of each would not have been cross-admissible due to the danger of unfair prejudice. The attacks on Yolanda, Karen, and Melissa occurred within a three-month period. Although the attack on Alisa occurred two years and nine months before the attack on Yolanda, this time interval did not require the trial court to find that the probative value of the evidence of each attack was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Cf. State v. Arner; 195 Ariz. 394, 395 ¶ 1, 988 P.2d 1120, 1121 (App. 1999) ; Rule 404 cmt. to 1997 amendment (remoteness
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment
B. holding that a bankruptcy court did not err in ordering repayment over five years
C. holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon
D. holding that trial court did not err
E. holding trial court did not err by permitting evidence that defendant molested another child three years before the victim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.