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.

Q: testimony, which included not just the cooperators but also the undercover agent, the government also played for the jury the taped conversations from the wiretap. In a number of these conversations, Herrera specifically discussed the drug quantities involved. Furthermore, this case does not present a situation such as the one the Supreme Court considered in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), where a conviction was overturned because there was too great a risk of evidentiary spillover, in part because there were thirty-two named participants and eight separate conspiracies. In the present matter there were only six named participants, two conspiracies and two defendants on trial. See United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 433 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Given the strength of this evidence for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the conviction should be affirmed despite the existence of two conspiracies where the indictment charged only one because this variance did not prejudice the defendant (B) holding that only one offense should have been charged when four separate packages of the same drug were found (C) recognizing the two different types of conspiracies under the federal statute (D) holding that the conviction should be upheld because there was no prejudice to the defendant even though the defendant had been charged with one conspiracy and the proof at trial showed two separate conspiracies (E) holding that the jury would have no problem separating the actions of the individual defendants where there were only four defendants and two separate conspiracies

A: holding that the conviction should be affirmed despite the existence of two conspiracies where the indictment charged only one because this variance did not prejudice the defendant
****
Q: in a 3-2 decision does not settle the intent issue, because Honkanen did not consider the difference between intent to injure or inflict pain and intent to correct. Additionally, Honkanen’s rationale may be outdated in light of the 2001 amendments to NRS 48.061, which expand the use of bad-act evidence in domestic violence cases, 2001 Nev. Stat., ch. 360, § 1, at 169; see NRS 33.018(1)(a) (defining “domestic violence” to include battery on an accused’s minor child), and Bigpond, which recognizes that character evidence can be admissible so long as it has a credible, non- propensity purpose, such as explaining the relationship dynamics between a domestic-violence victim and the accused. 128 Nev. at 111, 270 P.3d at 1246; see also Harris v. State, 195 P.3d 161, 182 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008) (<HOLDING>). Cherry, J., concurring in part and dissenting 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper (B) holding that a new trial was the remedy for erroneous admission of rule 404b evidence (C) recognizing that the holding in harvey v state 604 p2d 586 590 alaska 1979 a case similar to honkanen had been abrogated by the amendment of alaskas rule 404b to allow admission of prior incidents of domestic violence as an exception to the general rule against admitting such evidence (D) recognizing general rule (E) recognizing this as the general rule

A: holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper
****
Q: that the defendant’s right to a fair trial is prejudiced. See Masaka, 4 So.3d at 1286; Wells, 967 So.2d at 419. In the instant case, there was no evidence offered that Appellant worked in conjunction with anyone else to commit the crimes. Such a theory was never argued before the jury, and the instruction on principals was neither requested by the State nor read in the original reading of the jury instructions. The instruction was only given after the jury presented the court with a question regarding its inability to determine whether Appellant was the actual shooter. Where there was no evidence offered that Appellant acted with anyone in committing the shootings, the trial court erred in reading the principals instruction. See Lovette v. State, 654 So.2d 604, 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (<HOLDING>). Further, the error was not harmless in that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that instructing the jury on a legal duty theory when appellant had no legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense was error (B) holding that trial court committed reversible error in not instructing jury to determine credibility of incriminating statements attributed to defendant by state trooper (C) holding that the trial court committed reversible error in instructing the jury on a principals theory because there was no evidence that the appellant acted in concert with anyone in committing the charged offenses (D) holding that there is no error in instructing the jury on alternative theories if there is sufficient evidence that the defendant committed firstdegree murder (E) holding that the trial court committed fundamental error in not instructing the jury on the knowledge element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence when that element was in dispute at trial

A:
holding that instructing the jury on a legal duty theory when appellant had no legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense was error
****