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: are matters within the province of the trier of fact." Commonwealth v. Taylor, 324 Pa.Super. 420, 471 A.2d 1228, 1229-30 (1984). This same standard is used when evaluating an adjudication of delinquency. See In the Interest of A.D., 771 A.2d 45 (Pa.Super.2001). A minor is guilty of driving under the influence if he operates a motor vehicle while maintaining a blood alcohol content of .02% or greater. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. 3731(a)(4)(ii). 5 Here, the record reflects that Appellant drove past a posted stop sign without stopping. Thereafter, he failed two field sobriety tests and registered a blood alcohol level of .022%. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to adjudicate Appellant delinquent for driving under the influence. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 834 A.2d 1160, 1167 (Pa.Super.2003) (<HOLDING>). 6 Next, Appellant challenges the
Holding statements: (A) holding that a refusal to perform field sobriety tests was admissible as evidence of intoxication (B) holding evidence sufficient when appellant exhibited signs of possible intoxication failed field sobriety tests and had blood alcohol level in excess of legal limit (C) holding that the trial court did not err by refusing to give a voluntary intoxication charge because even though there was testimony that the appellant had consumed some alcohol prior to the killing there was no evidence that the appellant had been overwhelmed or overpowered by alcohol (D) holding that an erisa fiduciary did not act unreasonably when it denied benefits to an insured beneficiary after the insured died from driving with a blood alcohol level 50 higher than the legal limit (E) holding such intoxication to be voluntary
A:
holding that a refusal to perform field sobriety tests was admissible as evidence of intoxication