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.

Ex Input:
child abuse or neglect or who testifies or otherwise participates in a judicial proceeding arising from a report, petition, or investigation of alleged child abuse or neglect is immune from civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed. Id. § 261.106(a) (emphasis added). The dissent also correctly points out that “Immunity from liability and immunity from suit are two distinct principles.” Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex.1999). Finally, the dissent even recognizes that “[ijmmunity from liability is an affirmative defense, while immunity from suit deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex.2004); see also City of Hous. v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128, 134 (Tex.2011) (<HOLDING>); Harris County Hosp. Dist. v. Tomball Reg’l 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the oneyear bar contained in  2255 acts as an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar (B) holding bjecause immunity from liability constitutes an affirmative defense not a jurisdictional bar only immunity from suit is properly before us today (C) recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit (D) holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit (E) holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional

Ex Output:
(B)


Ex Input:
should be drawn from the defendant's failure to call his accomplices to testify. The prosecutor remarked only that Mitchell had the power to subpoena witnesses, and that the defense could do so "if they thought it would contradict something [the State! presented.” In light of defense counsel’s earlier statements that "clearly you have a situation where a misidentification could take place,” and that the jury should be able to see Corprew, Cochran, and Henderson in the courtroom, the prosecutor's remarks did not relate to the substance of those witnesses’ potential testimonies. Had the prosecutor inferred that Corprew, Cochran, and Henderson would have testified unfavorably to the defense, that inference might well have conflicted with Christensen, 274 Md. at 140-41, 333 A.2d at 49 (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, we conclude that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court has discretion to permit defendant to call accused witness to stand and permit witness to invoke fifth amendment privilege in front of jury where entire defense was centered on witness commission of crime (B) holding that sixth amendment only requires that witness be brought to court not that he be required to take witness stand after refusing to testify and observing that it is irrelevant whether the witnesss refusal is grounded in a valid fifth amendment privilege an invalid privilege or something else entirely (C) holding that an adverse inference cannot be drawn from a defendants failure to call a witness if the states evidence establishes that the witness is an accomplice who would be entitled to assert a fifth amendment privilege (D) holding that witness was not an accomplice in distributing marijuana to himself (E) holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify

Ex Output:
(C)


Ex Input:
in a phone call with his friend Lemons, West-brooks mentioned a “lick,” or a robbery, in Carver City. Also, Westbrooks admitted being with or in control of his car all night, and the State presented evidence that Westbrooks’ car was involved in the incident. There was no other explanation for Westbrooks’ car being in Carver City that night. Cf. Rocker, 122 So.3d at 904 (concluding that Rocker’s actions on the night of the murder were “just as consistent with the theory that he was participating in a drug transaction as [they were] with the theory that he was participating in a robbery”). The State presented evidence of intent and participation that was inconsistent with Westbrooks’ theory that he was not involved in the incident. Cf. Pack v. State, 381 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (<HOLDING>). Because the State presented circumstantial 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a robbery defendant was not entitled to a compulsion instruction in the absence of a claim that he or the victim was the target of a specific threat forcing the defendant to participate in the robbery (B) holding that circumstantial evidence that defendant drove the car and fled the scene after his brother committed robbery was insufficient to sustain defendants conviction absent other evidence of defendants intent to aid in the robbery (C) holding defendants participation in violent robbery and his fear of codefendants among other facts provided sufficient evidence that murder should have been anticipated as result of robbery (D) holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate (E) holding that evidence showing the defendant after shooting the victim ran from the scene got into a car nearby and drove away was sufficient evidence of flight

Ex Output:

(B)