Kingsley was prosecuted for selling cocaine to an undercover police agent. At his trial, he testified that he only sold the drugs to the agent, whom Kingsley knew as "Speedy," because Speedy had told him that he (Speedy) would be killed by fellow gang members unless he supplied them with cocaine. The prosecution did not cross-examine Kingsley. As rebuttal evidence, however, the prosecutor introduced records, over Kingsley's objection, showing that Kingsley had two prior convictions for narcotics-related offenses. The court instructed the jury concerning the defense of entrapment and added, also over Kingsley's objection but in accord with state law, that it should acquit on the ground of entrapment only if it found that the defendant entrapment only if it found that the defendant had established the elements of the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Kingsley was convicted. On appeal, Kingsley's conviction should be 
reversed, because it was an error for the court to admit the evidence of his prior convictions as substantive evidence.  reversed, because it was a violation of due process to impose on the defense a burden of persuasion concerning entrapment.  reversed, for both of the above reasons.  affirmed, because neither of the above reasons constitutes a ground for reversal. 
Question: Kingsley was prosecuted for selling cocaine to an undercover police agent. At his trial, he testified that he only sold the drugs to the agent, whom Kingsley knew as "Speedy," because Speedy had told him that he (Speedy) would be killed by fellow gang members unless he supplied them with cocaine. The prosecution did not cross-examine Kingsley. As rebuttal evidence, however, the prosecutor introduced records, over Kingsley's objection, showing that Kingsley had two prior convictions for narcotics-related offenses. The court instructed the jury concerning the defense of entrapment and added, also over Kingsley's objection but in accord with state law, that it should acquit on the ground of entrapment only if it found that the defendant entrapment only if it found that the defendant had established the elements of the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Kingsley was convicted. On appeal, Kingsley's conviction should be 
A. reversed, because it was an error for the court to admit the evidence of his prior convictions as substantive evidence. 
B. reversed, because it was a violation of due process to impose on the defense a burden of persuasion concerning entrapment. 
C. reversed, for both of the above reasons. 
D. affirmed, because neither of the above reasons constitutes a ground for reversal. 
Answer: