In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Example Input: those same arguments. Like the majority of the appellate panel that first reviewed this appeal, we are not persuaded to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court on this evidential ruling. It was for the trial court to assess defendant’s prior conviction’s probative value in light of its remoteness, and we cannot say that the trial court erred in that judgment. The question is not whether we would have made a different determination in the first instance. Rather, we apply the normal, deferential standard and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted the use of the prior conviction for impeachment purposes. The conviction was not stale by the standard in use for assessing remoteness. See Harris, supra, 209 N.J. at 436, 444-45, 38 A.3d 559 (<HOLDING>). And, we cannot say that the trial court’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prior drug convictions that were four ten and eleven years old were not so remote from the charged drug offenses as to render them inadmissible (B) holding two prior convictions more than ten years old admissible where disorderlypersons offenses bridged the gap (C) holding that state may charge separately for the same offense but the convictions for more than one of the offenses cannot stand (D) holding that evidence of two intervening felony convictions removed taint of remoteness from convictions more than 10 years prior permitting analysis under rule 609a (E) holding that prior distribution and possession convictions that were eight and ten years before the charged conduct occurred were not too remote
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: F.2d 448, 451 (1st Cir.1975). Anderson’s condition at the time of the statement was described as excited, nervous and scared, and he appeared as if “he did not know what to do.” Moreover, his statement directly related to an exciting event, the shooting. Thus, based on the evidence and circumstances known at the time of its ruling, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the exciting event witnessed by Anderson was the shooting itself. Accordingly, to the extent the trial court based its ruling on the fact that Anderson personally perceived the shooting, we find no abuse of discretion. We further note that the startling occurrence that triggers the excited utterance need not necessarily be the crime itself. See Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 154-55 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (<HOLDING>); Couchman v. State, 3 S.W.3d 155, 159 
 Holding statements: (A) holding trial court could have found startling event or condition was declarants sustaining an injury or the pain she later experienced (B) holding that a logical nexus between the injury sued upon and an unre lated prior condition satisfied the rondinelli test requiring only the possibility that the plaintiffs claimed damages in whole or in part resulted from a condition or event unrelated to the defendants negligence (C) holding that a lower court properly admitted a fouryear olds hearsay statement although she made it 1215 hours after the startling event (D) holding that statement must be product of a startling event (E) holding a condition precedent is an act or event that must be performed or occur after the contract has been formed before the contract becomes effective
Example Output: (A)

Example Input: that an impartial jury cannot be obtained in such county.”); OCGA § 17-2-2 (a). 15 Jones, 272 Ga. at 901 (2); accord Muldrow v. St hat State failed to prove venue when only evidence presented was that murder victim’s neighbor that defendant abandoned majority of his ineffective assistance claims by making only conclusory arguments and failing to support such argument with citations to authority). 31 Tyner, 313 Ga. App. at 564 (6) (a) (punctuation omitted); see Perdue v. State, 298 Ga. 841, 845 (3) (785 SE2d 291) (2016) (noting that it is well established that the decision as to which defense witnesses to call is a matter of trial strategy and tactics). 32 Tyner, 313 Ga. App. at 564 (6) (a) (punctuation omitted). 33 See Mattox v. State, 305 Ga. App. 600, 606 (3) (699 SE2d 887) (2010) (<HOLDING>). 34 Davenport v. State, 308 Ga. App. 140, 154 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that counsels failure to impeach a witness by showing bias was ineffective assistance (B) holding witnesss business address even though witnesss middle name omitted enough information because party could locate witness (C) holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand (D) holding that trial counsels inability to locate witness did not constitute ineffective assistance when defendant only knew witnesss first name and the apartment complex where he believed the witness lived (E) holding that defendant is under an obligation to give the government notice of an alibi witness even if defendant is unable to locate the witness
Example Output:
(D)