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.

that may be considered in determining punishment are the subject of article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex.Code CRIM. PROC. Ann. Art. 37.07 (Vernon Supp.2004). This statute authorizes the admission of evidence in the punishment phase of trial as to any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing. Id. The circumstances of the offense are relevant to sentencing and may be considered by the trier of fact in determining the punishment to be assessed. Murphy v. State, 777 S.W.2d 44, 63 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). One circumstance of the offense that may be considered is the degree of injury to the victim so long as the fact finder may rationally attribute moral culpability to the accused for that injury. Stavinoha v. State, 808 S.W.2d 76, 78-79 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (<HOLDING>); Miller-El v. State, 782 S.W.2d 892, 896 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that sexual assault coercion and harassment certainly may violate contemporary standards of decency and cause physical and psychological harm (B) holding in aggravated sexual assault case that testimony regarding psychological trauma suffered by child victim and its physical manifestations properly admitted (C) holding that psychological conditions resulting from workrelated trauma are compensable (D) recognizing trauma that new trial would likely bring to victim of child sexual assault (E) recognizing the purpose of missouris child victim witness protection law sec 491675 et seq as an attempt to minimize the emotional and psychological trauma to the alleged child victim
holding that sexual assault coercion and harassment certainly may violate contemporary standards of decency and cause physical and psychological harm

1024-25 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1996) (J. Mark) (discussing the split of authority and explaining that Congress codified the result of In re Bobroff, 766 F.2d 797 (3d Cir.1985) which encouraged the use of debt repayment plans by ensuring that property acquired post-petition would not be subject to creditors’ claims if Chapter 13 proved unsuccessful). Courts which held that property acquired post-petition must be property of the Chapter 7 estate after conversion did so because they believed such policy was “necessary to discourage strategic, opportunistic behavior that hurts creditors without advancing any legitimate interests of the debtors.” In re Lybrook, 951 F.2d 136, 137 (7th Cir.1991). Lybrook, In re Colder, 973 F.2d 862 (10th Cir.1992), and In re Lindberg, 735 F.2d 1087 (8th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>), base their results on policy concerns that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that while state law determines the existence of a claim federal law determines when a claim arises for bankruptcy purposes (B) holding for  1983 actions that although state law determines the limitations period federal law determines when the claim arises (C) holding that federal law determines definition of executory contract but that state law determines whether a material breach of the contract could occur (D) holding that date of conversion determines what exemptions apply (E) holding that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply state law that determines the outcome of the case
holding that while state law determines the existence of a claim federal law determines when a claim arises for bankruptcy purposes

to explain in this appeal any evidence of the defendants’ malicious interference with his relationship with others. The evidence he offers, that he has had difficulty obtaining employment and privileges following his dismissal from the Hospital and that his dismissal could potentially serve as a basis for a revocation elsewhere, is not probative at all of the defendants’ unllful intent to interfere in those other business relationships. That evidence merely reflects the incidental consequences of his termination from, the Hospital. Dr. Wong simply fails to offer any proof of the first element of this claim, that the defendants influenced others to the same course that they took for the purpose of damaging his business. See Fuselier, Ott & McKee v. Moeller, 507 So.2d 63, 69 (Miss.1987) (<HOLDING>). We therefore hold that the adverse summary 
 Holding statements: (A) holding error for chancellor to find that the appellants had tortiously interfered with the appellees business relationships where record failed to disclose a single client who was influenced by the appellants to terminate the appellees services due to the appellants intervention (B) holding that the trial court reversibly erred in denying the appellants motion for mistrial given the appellees testimony that we dont have no ticket for that accident notwithstanding the fact that the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the comment (C) holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact relating to issues raised at an evidentiary hearing on the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not raise the issue in the circuit court (D) holding trial court abused its discretion when it struck the appellants intervention (E) holding that appellants privacy interests under the us and texas constitutions were not invaded when officer walked up appellants driveway to allow drug dog to sniff appellants garage door

holding that the trial court reversibly erred in denying the appellants motion for mistrial given the appellees testimony that we dont have no ticket for that accident notwithstanding the fact that the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the comment