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.

campus is a limited public forum. Def. Br. 12. The Court agrees with the defendants’ assessment. The Court begins by recognizing that “the campus of a public university, at least for its students, possesses many of the characteristics of a public forum.” Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 267 n. 5, 102 S.Ct. 269, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981). Accordingly, the Second Circuit has noted, “[s]ome portions of a public college’s campus may be a public forum.” Davis v. Stratton, 360 FedAppx. 182, 184 (2d Cir.2010). Significant to the analysis, however, is that these areas may constitute a designated public forum only to the extent they are “intentionally openfed]” to First Amendment activities. Make the Road by Walking, Inc. v. Turner, 378 F.3d 133, 143 (2d Cir.2004); see also Ochshom, 645 F.3d at 540 (<HOLDING>); Hotel Emps., 311 F.3d at 545 (noting that a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a high school is not a public forum thus precluding free airing of religious views (B) holding that a public high school newspaper was a limited public forum not a traditional or designated public forum because there was no evidence that the school permitted indiscriminate use by the general public quoting hazelwood sch dist v kuhlmeier 484 us 260 267 108 sct 562 98 led2d 592 1988 (C) holding that a public school did not create a public forum by allowing commercial advertising on a baseball field fence (D) recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public (E) recognizing that government is not required to retain open nature of designated public forum
(B)

background nor his current offense can support the conclusion that he is a worst offender. The maximum sentence was therefore not justified. In deciding to impose the maximum sentence, Judge Michalski relied primarily on his conclusion that Skrepich was incapable of rehabilitation and could not personally be deterred. The judge thus gave primary emphasis to the need to protect the public by isolating Skrepich from the community. While the judge also indicated that a lengthy sentence would serve the sentencing goals of general deterrence and community condemnation, it seems clear that these goals could not, in themselves, support the imposition of a maximum, ten-year term for a first offender convicted of a class B felony. See Pears v. State, 698 P.2d 1198, 1204-05 (Alaska 1985) (<HOLDING>). The appropriateness of the maximum term 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district courts failure to explain the effect of supervised release was harmless where the maximum term of incarceration under the actual sentence of imprisonment and supervised release less than six years as well as his worstcase scenario less than nine years was less than the maximum term of incarceration twenty years al lowed by law (B) holding that a defendant may be convicted of felony murder when the death of his accomplice was a reasonably foreseeable result of their commission of a felony (C) holding that first and seconddegree intentional murder verdicts are consistent with a felony murder verdict because lack of intent is not an element of seconddegree felony murder (D) holding that a term of substantially less than twenty years would serve the objectives of general deterrence and community condemnation in the case of a first offender convicted of seconddegree murder an unclassified felony (E) holding that twenty years was not excessive for second felony offender convicted of simple burglary
(D)

Trial Transcript at 802 (emphasis added). Moreover, McCullough’s trial counsel did not request a limiting instruction or admonishment to indicate that the jury’s use of the evidence of the California Claim was limited to impeachment purposes. See Ind. Evidence Rule 105 (“When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and admonish the jury accordingly.”). In this case, where the only direct evidence supporting the charges was the testimony of the accuser, it is highly probable that the jury drew the forbidden propensity inference in reaching its verdicts. See Sudling v. State, 679 N.E.2d 988, 992-994 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (<HOLDING>), reh’g denied; Tucker v. State, 646 N.E.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the state is entitled to prove all of the relevant ci t argues that the trial court erred by admitting the victims hearsay statements through the testimony of her children and of melvin gaither and through the admission of exhibit sixtyone the victims application for an order of protectiona hearsay statement is defined as a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted tenn r evid 801c as a general rule a hearsay statement is not admissible unless it falls within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule tenn r evid 802 the following standards define our review of the trial courts rulings on the admissibility of hearsayinitially the trial court must determine whether the statement is hearsay if the statement is hearsay then the trial court must next determine whether the hearsay statement fits within one of the exceptions to answer these questions the trial court may need to receive evidence and hear testimony when the trial court makes factual findings and credibility determinations in the course of ruling on an evidentiary motion these factual and credibility findings are binding on a reviewing court unless the evidence in the record preponderates against them once the trial court has made its factual findings the next questionswhether the facts prove that the statement 1 was hearsay and 2 fits under one of the exceptions to the hearsay ruleare questions of law subject to de novo reviewif a statement is hearsay but does not fit one of the exceptions it is inadmissible and the court must exclude the statement but if a hearsay statement does fit under one of the exceptions the trial court may not use the hearsay rule to suppress the statement however the statement may otherwise run afoul of another rule of evidence  if a trial court excludes otherwise admissible hearsay on the basis of rule 401 402 or 403 this determination is reviewed for abuse of discretionkendrick v state 454 sw3d 450 47980 tenn 2015 citations omitted see also state v howard 504 sw3d 260 27576 tenn 2016 we now apply these principles to evaluate each of the defendants challenges to the trial courts evidentiary rulings1 admission of the testimony of the childrenthe trial court permitted each of the children to testify about hearing the victim tell the defendant that she was going to call the police concluding that this testimony was nonhearsay offered to show the effect the victims statements had on the defendant not the truth of the victims statements that she planned to call the police the court of criminal appeals affirmed the trial courts decision hawkins 2015 wl 5169157 at 18 and we do as wellthe childrens testimony regarding the victims threats to call the police was offered to establish the effect the victims statements had on the defendant and to establish the defendant murdered her because he believed she planned to call the police this testimony was not offered to establish the truth of the victims threats as a result the childrens testimony about the victims statements was properly admitted as nonhearsay see state v venable 606 sw2d 298 301 tenn crim app 1980 clearly the statement was probative not as proof of the matter asserted therein but because of its effect on the hearer in this case the defendant supplying evidence of his motive in returning to the service station later in the day armed and threatening to kill the declarant  see generally neil p cohen et al tennessee law of evidence  8017 6th ed 2011 hereinafter tennessee law of evidence discussing nonhearsay declarations offered to prove the effect on the listener2 testimony of melvin gaitherthe trial court also allowed melvin gaither to testify about the victims statements to him concerning her fear of the defendant the trial court ruled that the victims statements were hearsayoffered for the truth of the matter asserted thereinbut admissible pursuant to the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule tenn r evid 8033 the court of criminal appeals affirmed hawkins 2015 wl 5169157 at 19 and we agree that this evidence was properly admittedthe state of mind exception authorizes the admission of a hearsay statementof the declarants then existing state of mind emotion sensation or physical conditions such as intent plan motive design mental feeling pain and bodily health but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution revocation identification or terms of declarants willtenn r evid 8033 here the defendant initially told the police that the victim left home in anger following an argument with him later the defendant admitted the victim had been murdered but claimed that kt had murdered her after kt and the victim argued the defendant maintained that he had not participated in the murder at all and had only assisted kt in covering up the crime and dismembering and disposing of the victims body the defendant never recanted his statement implicating kt and denying his own involvement in the victims murder the defendants statements placed at issue the victims mental state at the time of her murder the state was entitled to establish that the victim feared the defendant not kt at the time of her murder see smith 868 sw2d at 573 ruling that the victims hearsay statements expressing fear of the defendant were admissible under the state of mind exception and relevant to reveal the falsehood of the defendants statement to the police indicating that he and his wife the victim were reconciling state v trusty 326 sw3d 582 603 tenn crim app 2010 given the proof of the onagain offagain nature of the victims relationship with the defendant we conclude that the statements she made shortly before her death about her fear of the defendant were relevant and admissible under the state of mind exception to show not only her state of mind at thetime she uttered the statements but also her probable mental state and behavior at the time of her death   the trial court did not err by admitting mr gaithers testimony about the victims statements pursuant to the state of mind hearsay exception3 application for order of protectionthe defendant next challenges the trial courts admission of the victims january 15 2008 application for an order or protection the application was admitted as exhibit sixtyone through the testimony of deborah coffman a counselor and records keeper for citizens dispute a shelby county government agency that assists persons in completing the application process for orders of protection the victims application included the following statementsthe defendant had the impression that he would be moving with me and my three children when he realized he was not moving he became violent pulling my hair and hit me on my right cheek jaw with his fist he was telling my twelve year old daughter to lock herself in the bathroom and to tell the police that i pulled her hair abused her he was not arrested for his violencehe wants my twelve year old daughter to be around him often sleep with him and she has changed telling lies and disrespectful i hope he hasnt molested her he says no and she says no but both have lied so im just trying to protect me and the childreni dont want him around me or my children i dont trust himthe application also included the victims statement that the defendant had told her she was wrong for taking kt from him and that he could get the victim without  even having to touch her because he could get somebody else to get the victimthe trial court admitted the application pursuant to the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule explainingand im finding just so well all understand their relationship had deteriorated to such a point the victim and the defendant that at this point i think the recordthat the state has shown by a preponderance of the evidence from this hearing that the reason for the killing the motive for the killing would be to stop her from prosecuting him for things against her and her child because shes here talking about harassing phone calls and things like that so i think tennessee rule of evidence 8046 is going to apply to this case to that extentthe court of criminal appeals affirmed the trial courts ruling hawkins 2015 wl 5169157 at 19 we also affirm the trial courts rulingthe forfeiture by wrongdoing exception authorizes the admission of a hearsay statement against a party that has engaged in wrongdoing that was intended to and did procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness tenn r evid 804b6 before admitting a hearsay statement under this exception the trial court must conduct a juryout hearing and determine that a preponderance of the evidence establishes 1 (B) holding that the trial court erred by permitting testimony regarding uncharged acts of sexual misconduct by the defendant and that a substantial likelihood existed that the forbidden inference contributed to the verdict given that the only evidence of each instance of child molestation came from the victims (C) holding that the trial court erred by admitting a doctors testimony that a child victims description of a sexual crime was very believable (D) holding that evidence of prior uncharged sexual conduct with the victim is admissible to corroborate the victims testimony (E) holding that the trial court did not err in excluding the evidence of possible molestation of the victim by a person other than the defendant and virginity or the lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with the crime of child molestation

(B)