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.
--------
Question: 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

Answer: holding that sexual assault coercion and harassment certainly may violate contemporary standards of decency and cause physical and psychological harm


Question: venture as contrasted with a governmental function.’ ” Hoffer v. State, 110 Wn.2d 415, 422, 755 P.2d 781 (1988) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1097 (5th ed. 1979)), adhered to on recons., 113 Wn.2d 148, 776 P.2d 963 (1989). 5 Mun. of Metro. Seattle, 118 Wn.2d at 645. 6 Id. at 646 (quoting City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 108 Wn.2d 679, 695, 743 P.2d 793 (1987)). 7 Id. 8 RCW 57.08.081(1). 9 These factors include the difference in cost to various customers, the location of customers within and without the district, the achievement of water conservation goals and discouragement of wasteful practices, and “any other matters which present a reasonable difference as a ground for distinction.” RCW 57-.08.081(2). 10 See City of Tacoma v. Welcker, 65 Wn.2d 677, 685, 399 P.2d 330 (1965) (<HOLDING>). 11 See Mun. of Metro. Seattle, 118 Wn.2d at 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that coverage could be triggered by need to prevent imminent contamination of groundwater (B) recognizing that watershed isolation or acquisition serves to prevent and control water contamination (C) holding that article x  2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially (D) recognizing that water retained within a watershed is susceptible to multiple use because all water uses are not consumptive uses (E) holding authority to control limits duty to control

Answer: recognizing that coverage could be triggered by need to prevent imminent contamination of groundwater


Question: v. Mohler, 694 N.E.2d 1129 (Ind.1998), we conclude that the new rule of law announced in Bryant v. State, 660 N.E.2d 290 (Ind.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 293, 136 L.Ed.2d 213 (1996), is not retroactive under Daniels v. State, 561 N.E.2d 487 (Ind.1990), and so does not entitle Gary Elvers to post-conviction relief. On July 24, 1992, the Indiana Department of Revenue assessed Gary Elvers (“Elvers”) a Controlled Substance Excise Tax (“CSET”) for possessing marijuana. The State charged Elvers with possession of marijuana, a class A misdemeanor, and failure to pay the CSET on July 28, 1992. Elvers pled guilty to the charge of possession on May 24, 1993. On July 3, 1996, Elvers filed a petition for post-conviction relief based on this Court’s decision in Bryant, 660 N.E.2d 290 (<HOLDING>), which the post-conviction court denied. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because cset is punishment the double jeopardy clause bars drug prosecution after cset has been assessed (B) holding that if double jeopardy clause is not violated because legislature intended double punishment section 7019 is not applicable and merger is not required (C) holding that the jeopardy clause bars retrial when the prosecution failed to supply sufficient evidence to merit conviction (D) holding that unlike under the federal constitution a civil forfeiture is punishment under the new mexico double jeopardy clause (E) holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause

Answer:
holding that if double jeopardy clause is not violated because legislature intended double punishment section 7019 is not applicable and merger is not required