Instructions: 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.
Input: 958 S.W.2d 679, 692-93 (Tenn.1997). 5 . The jury convicted Antonio Saulsberry of premeditated murder, especially aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit a robbery. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction for premeditated murder because it was not supported by sufficient evidence. Claude Sharkey entered into a plea bargain agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to felony murder. Kevin Wilson also entered into a plea bargain agreement. Clashaun Sharkey was tried separately, but the record does not reveal the verdict in that trial. 6 . Because we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error, we cannot find the error harmless. See Neder v. U.S., 527 U.S. 1, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1837, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth
Holding statements: (A) holding that the denial of due process in a particular case is subject to harmless error analysis (B) holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis (C) holding that failure to submit an element of the offense to the jury is subject to harmless error analysis (D) holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis (E) holding that the omission of an element is not a structural error subject to automatic reversal but rather where objected to is subject to harmless error analysis
Output:
(D)