The defendant is on trial for conspiracy to import marijuana and arson on the high seas. The prosecution has alleged that the defendant set fire to the shrimp boat on which he was transporting marijuana when he saw a Coast Guard vessel approaching. The boat was in flames and the defendant was nearby in a rowboat when the Coast Guard reached the shrimper. The prosecution has called an arson investigator from Miami who was trained at the FBI academy in arson investigation. He has investigated fires of suspicious origin, including boats in the harbor, for twenty years. The prosecution intends to ask investigator about arson and the defense established that the witness had never before investigated a fire on the high seas and could not opine about whether the motion of a ship at sea could stimulate the appearance of a two-origin fire. The defendant objects to any further testimony from this witness. The court should A. sustain defendant’s objection because the issue of how the fire started is an issue of fact and not an appropriate subject for expert testimony B. sustain the defendant’s objection because the witness is not qualified to testify about whether this fire on the high seas was arson C. overrule the objection and allow the witness to testify as a lay witness D. overrule the objection and allow the witness to testify as an expert.