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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

n. 7, 713 P.2d at 960 n. 7 (1986) (“Counsel has no right to cast upon the court the burden of searching through a voluminous record to find the ground of an objection. It is counsel’s duty to cite accurately the portions of the record supporting counsel’s position.” (Internal citation omitted.)); Hoang, 93 Hawaii at 336, 3 P.3d at 602 (2000) (“Because the factual basis of [appellant’s] alleged point of error is not part of the record on appeal, this court has no basis upon which to rule on the merits of his claim.” (Citation omitted.)) Even if Appellants’ allegations of fraudulent inducement are taken at face value, they fall short of “clear and convincing” evidence of fraudulent inducement. Honolulu Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Murphy, 7 Haw. App. 196, 202, 753 P.2d 807, 812 (1988) (<HOLDING>). At a more fundamental level, they do not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a finding of fraud may be reversed only for clear error but that the finding must be judged in view of the clear and convincing burden of proof (B) holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied (C) holding that the standard of proving fraudulent inducement with respect to written contracts is extremely high and a written contract will be cancelled only in a clear ease of fraud supported by clear and convincing evidence citations omitted (D) holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence (E) holding clear and convincing standard to prove fraud or fraudulent intent and preponderance of the evidence to prove other elements under  727
holding that a finding of fraud may be reversed only for clear error but that the finding must be judged in view of the clear and convincing burden of proof

situation he confronted.’ ” Id. at 367 (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001)). Particularly, the contours of De Boise’s right to be free from excessive force must be so sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would know that the multiple tasings under the circumstances were a violation of that right. See Roberts v. City of Omaha, 723 F.3d 966, 972 (8th Cir.2013). Although we have determined that non-violent, non-fleeing subjects have a clearly established right to be free from the use of tasers, see Brown, 574 F.3d at 499-500, we have yet to determine whether a violent subject, acting aggressively toward officers, has a clearly established right to be free from multiple tasings. See Clark v. Ware, 873 F.Supp.2d 1117, 1123 (E.D.Mo.2012) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, in 2008, case law related to the use 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court could not determine as a matter of law that the repeated use of a taser on a subject that was physically resisting the police violated a clearly established right as of november 2009 (B) holding the right to record police activity on public property was not clearly established (C) holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established (D) holding that clearly established law is construed as supreme court or tenth circuit decisions on point or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts (E) holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine
holding the right to record police activity on public property was not clearly established

include the element that elevates the crime to a higher level.” As we noted in State v. Bean, 153 N.H. 380 (2006), “[i]n Glanville, the State, although not required to do so under Johnson, attempted to charge the defendant with a specific variant of the crime allegedly attempted, but failed to accurately set forth that variant in the indictment.” Bean, 153 N.H. at 384; see Johnson, 144 N.H. at 178. Indeed, Glanville recognized that all that was required “[t]o charge the defendant with attempted armed robbery, class A felony, [was for] the indictment ... to allege that the defendant (1) with a purpose to commit armed robbery, (2) committed acts constituting a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.” Glanville, 145 N.H. at 634 (emphasis added); cf. Casanova, 164 N.H. at 566 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the indictment in this case 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because statutory variants of an underlying crime are not elements of an attempt to commit the underlying crime jurors are not required to unanimously find which specific statutory variant the defendant intended to commit it is sufficient that they unanimously conclude that the defendant intended to commit any of the applicable statutory variants (B) holding that an employer who caused his agent to commit a crime in another county was deemed to have been personally present where the crime occurred (C) holding that firstdegree murder is one crime although the defendant can commit the crime in several ways (D) recognizing that entrapment is a statutory defense rooted in the notion that congress could not have intended to criminally punish those who commit elements of crime but are induced by the government to commit the acts and that outrageous conduct defense is rooted in constitutional law (E) holding that an individual cannot attempt to commit murder of the second or third degree because the crime of attempt is a specific intent crime and an attempt to commit second or third degree murder would require proof that the individual intended to perpetrate an unintentional killing which is logically impossible

holding that an employer who caused his agent to commit a crime in another county was deemed to have been personally present where the crime occurred