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.

[EX Q]: see State v. Sosa, 1997-NMSC-032, 9, 123 N.M. 564, 943 P.2d 1017. {34} Defendant argues that two provisions in the current Delinquency Act suggest the Legislature's intent to apply the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to the Section 32A-2-20 findings. These two provisions, Section 32A-2-24(B) (requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt in probation revocation hearings), and Section 32A-2-16(E) (requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a delinquency proceeding), are readily distinguishable from the amenability determination under Section 32A-2-20(B). First, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a delinquency proceeding is constitutionally mandated. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068. Second, a probation revocation hearing, l 7, 1140-41 (Ct.App.1978) (<HOLDING>); State v. Doe, 100 N.M. 649, 651, 674 P.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that constitutional due process in civil contempt proceedings requires notice and a hearing but not the right to counsel (B) recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights (C) holding right to testify was federal constitutional right (D) holding that treatment as a child is not a constitutional right but a right granted by the legislature and statute met basic due process requirements (E) holding basic elements of due process are notice and a right to be heard
[EX A]: holding that constitutional due process in civil contempt proceedings requires notice and a hearing but not the right to counsel

[EX Q]: potentially to have lost contact with family, friends, or each other. But that consequence is not "serious harm" and warning of such a consequence is not a "threat" under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In applying the Act, we must distinguish between "Dimproper threats or coercion and permissible warnings of adverse but legitimate consequences." United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 151 (1st Cir.2004), judgment vacated on other grounds, 545 U.S. 1101, 125 S.Ct. 2543, 162 L.Ed.2d 271 (2005); cf. Dann, 652 F.3d at 1170 (Act aims at serious trafficking and threats of dire consequences). This case involves the latter. A church is entitled to stop associating with someone who abandons it. Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc., 819 F.2d 875, 883 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). A church may also warn that it will stop
Holding statements: (A) holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause (B) holding that the free exercise clause protects the practice of shunning explaining that when the members of a cjhurch no longer want to associate with someone who has abandoned them those members are free under the first amendment to make that choice (C) holding that shortterm and sporadic interference with free exercise rights does not violate the first amendment (D) holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment (E) recognizing serious harm results when members of the legal profession engage in criminal acts which give rise to a lack of confidence by members of the public in those who are officers of the court
[EX A]: holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause

[EX Q]: of Tucson, Inc. v. Marks, 17 Adz.App. 308, 310, 497 P.2d 534, 536 (1972). 38 We agree with the trial court that the Richardsons' claim for declaratory relief regarding future liability to third parties for any failure to maintain the easement is non-justiciable. " 'A declaratory relief statute only justifies a declaration of rights upon an existing state of facts, not one upon a state of facts which may or may not arise in the future. Nor will future rights be determined in anticipation of an event that may never happen.'" Moore v. Bolin, 70 Ariz. 354, 357, 220 P.2d 850, 852 (1950) (quoting Annotation, Declaration of Rights or Declaratory Judgments, 87 A.L.R. 1205 (1933)); U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 198 Ariz. 208, 214-15, 15, 8 P.3d 396, 402-03 (App.2000) (<HOLDING>), vacated on other grounds, 201 Ariz. 242, 247,
Holding statements: (A) holding court will not render judgment on situation that may never occur (B) holding that the court will not interpret the law in such a way as to render a jurisdictional statute a nullity (C) holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal (D) holding that a statute must not be given the one of two reasonable interpretations which will render it unconstitutional (E) holding that district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction and yet that judgment void for lack of jurisdiction to render the particular judgment
[EX A]:
holding that the court will not interpret the law in such a way as to render a jurisdictional statute a nullity