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.

criminal activity, strictly liable to a person injured by such handgun during the course of a crime? 3) Does the Rohm Revolver Handgun Model RG38S, serial number 0152662, fall within the category referred to in question 2? Kelley, 304 Md. at 131, 497 A.2d 1143. 7 . The Court also discussed the effective date of the "modification of Maryland common law tort principles” it had fashioned. Id. at 161-62, 497 A.2d 1143. 8 . The majority of these cases have discussed the Court’s ability or willingness to modify the common law. See Parker v. State, 337 Md. 271, 283 n. 7, 653 A.2d 436 (1995); State v. Hawkins, 326 Md. 270, 292-94, 604 A.2d 489 (1992); Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420, 469-70, 601 A.2d 633 (1992); Murphy v. Edmonds t, Inc., 17 Md.App. 646, 659, 303 A.2d 432 (1973) (<HOLDING>) 10 . We alternatively based our decision on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court (B) holding that the court of appeals may not overrule modify or withdraw language from a previously published decision of the court of appeals (C) holding that this court will consider a petition for a writ of certiorari only after the court of appeals has overruled the application for rehearing on the point challenged in the petition implying that the decision by the court of criminal appeals must be final before certiorari review would be available (D) holding the fact remains however that such standard appears to be the law of this state as enunciated in the decisions of the court of appeals discussed previously unless those decisions are either explained away or overruled by the court of appeals itself this court must follow what a majority of its members discern to be the precept to be drawn from them ie proof of fraud in a civil action either in law or in equity must be clear and convincing only the court of appeals could disabuse of that notion (E) holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where  it appears that the  court of appeals itself would not follow that decision
(D)

27 . State v. Davenport, 510 P.2d 78, 82 n. 8 (Alaska 1973), quoting United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 741, 746, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965). 28 . Williams v. State, 737 P.2d 360, 362 (Alaska App.1987). 29 . Davenport, 510 P.2d at 80. 30 . Id. at 82 & n. 8. 31 . - See Landon v. State, 941 P.2d 186, 190 (Alaska App.1997); Stam v. State, 925 P.2d 668, 670 (Alaska App.1996) (when assessing the trustworthiness of hearsay information contained in a search warrant application, courts presume that police officers and citizen informants are credible sources of information}. 32 . Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). See State v. Jones, 706 P.2d 317, 322-25 (Alaska 1985) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible (B) holding that a defendant has no constitutional right to challenge the search or seizure of property belonging to a third party even if the search was without probable cause (C) holding that the admission of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure is subject to a harmlesserror analysis (D) holding as a matter of law that adaptations of subject matter or expressions in the public domain cannot support a finding of copyright infringement (E) holding that as a matter of state law the aguilarspinelli test continues to govern the evaluation of hearsay information offered to support a search or seizure
(E)

for the Court), this Court declared, “[b]y this ruling, we wish to make clear that the Court has relaxed the strict pleading requirements of common law.” Again, just last year, in State v. Barney, 986 S.W.2d 545, 546 (Tenn.1999) (Birch, J., writing for the Court), this Court noted, “[i]n conclusion, we wish to emphasize once again the fact that the Court has moved away from the strict pleading requirements of common law.” Relaxation of the strict pleading requirements of the common law is also apparent from recent decisions of this Court holding that an indictment which references the statute defining the offense is sufficient and satisfies the constitutional and statutory requirements of Hill. See State v. Sledge, 15 S.W.3d 93, 94 (Tenn.2000) (Holder, J., writing for the Court) (<HOLDING>); State v. Carter, 988 S.W.2d 145, 148 
 Holding statements: (A) holding an indictment alleging that the defendant did unlawfully kill the victim during the perpetration of aggravated robbery in violation of tca 3913202 sufficient because it contained a specific reference to the statute which was sufficient to place the accused on notice of the charged offense (B) holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense (C) holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself (D) holding that an allegation as to the time of the offense is not an essential element of the offense charged in the indictment and within reasonable time limits proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient (E) holding that reference to the appropriate statute was sufficient in felony murder indictments alleging that the defendant did unlawfully kill the victims during the perpetration of aggravated robbery in violation of tca 3913202

(A)