Deben was charged with using a forged prescription from a Dr. Kohl to obtain PercodanÂ® from Smith's Drugstore on May 1. At trial, Smith identified Deben as the customer, but Deben testified that he had not been in the store. In rebuttal, the prosecutor calls Wallman and Witler to testify that on May 1 a man they identified as Deben had presented prescriptions for PercodanÂ® from a Dr. Kohl at, respectively, Wallman's Drugs and Witler's Drugstore. Wallman's and Witler's testimony is 
admissible, to prove a pertinent trait of Deben's character and Deben's action in conformity therewith. conformity therewith.  admissible, to identify the man who presented the prescription at Smith's Drugstore.  inadmissible, because it proves specific acts rather than reputation or opinion.  inadmissible, because other crimes may not be used to show propensity. 
Question: Deben was charged with using a forged prescription from a Dr. Kohl to obtain PercodanÂ® from Smith's Drugstore on May 1. At trial, Smith identified Deben as the customer, but Deben testified that he had not been in the store. In rebuttal, the prosecutor calls Wallman and Witler to testify that on May 1 a man they identified as Deben had presented prescriptions for PercodanÂ® from a Dr. Kohl at, respectively, Wallman's Drugs and Witler's Drugstore. Wallman's and Witler's testimony is 
A. admissible, to prove a pertinent trait of Deben's character and Deben's action in conformity therewith. conformity therewith. 
B. admissible, to identify the man who presented the prescription at Smith's Drugstore. 
C. inadmissible, because it proves specific acts rather than reputation or opinion. 
D. inadmissible, because other crimes may not be used to show propensity. 
Answer: