Given the task definition and input, reply with output. 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.

504 N.W.2d 838, 841 (N.D. 1993). [ 6] Objections to jury instructions in criminal proceedings are governed by N.D.R.Crim.P. 30. A party must object to an instruction, or the failure to give an instruction, on the record. N.D.R.Crim.P. 30; State v. Jennewein, 2015 ND 192, 9, 867 N.W.2d 665; State v. Johnson, 2009 ND 76, 10, 764 N.W.2d 696; State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, 9, 575 N.W.2d 658. Mayland not only failed to object to the jury instructions excluding a jury determination on whether Mayland had previous convictions under N.D.C.C. 39-08-01, he requested and stipulated to the exclusion. In light of the stipulation, it would have been reversible error to provide an instruction requiring a jury determination on prior convictions. State v. Saul, 434 N.W.2d 572, 575 (N.D. 1989) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Mayland failed to preserve the
Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant could stipulate to prior dwi convictions (B) holding that when a defendant admits prior convictions at a habitual offender hearing he waives any complaints about the validity of the prior convictions (C) holding that when a defendant stipulates to prior convictions in prosecutions for aggravated offenses under ndcc 390801 submission of prior convictions to a jury constitutes reversible error (D) holding that application of career offender enhancement falls within exception for prior convictions where facts are undisputed making it unnecessary for district court to engage in further fact finding about prior convictions (E) holding that stipulation of the appellants undisputed prior convictions was harmless error and reasoning that blakely v washington which does not require a jury determination of prior convictions provides implicit support for the conclusion that a harmless error analysis is appropriate
holding that defendant could stipulate to prior dwi convictions