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]: to landslide, even though earth movement was the most immediate cause). We therefore conclude that this is a case of multiple causation. B. We must now determine whether the deterioration or the fungicide manufacturers' failure to warn is the "proximate efficient cause" of the damage to Berry's irrigation pipes. In Sabella, the California Supreme Court defined "proximate efficient cause" both as "the one that sets others in motion" and as "the predominating or moving efficient cause." Sabella, 27 Cal.Rptr. at 695, 377 P.2d at 895; see Garvey, 257 Cal.Rptr. at 296, 770 P.2d at 708 ("Sabella defined 'efficient proximate cause' alternatively as the 'one that sets others in motion' and as 'the predominating or moving efficient cause.'") (citations omitted); Howell, 267 Cal.Rptr. at 716 (<HOLDING>); Brian Chuchua's Jeep, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d at 445
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the existence of purely jurisdictional elements (B) recognizing existence of two tests (C) recognizing first two exceptions (D) recognizing that the existence of an agency relationship is ordinarily a question of fact (E) recognizing the existence of the special relationship
[EX A]: recognizing the existence of purely jurisdictional elements

[EX Q]: recognized that her statements could later be used prosecutorially. {57} Next, the State argues that the statement cannot be testimonial because the trial court made a preliminary finding that it was admissible under the hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. See Rule 11-803(D) NMRA. The State contends that this ruling necessarily indicates that "[the victim's] motive for making the statement, and ... Tucker's motive for eliciting it, was not to perpetuate her testimony for use in a future trial." {58} We disagree. Even if a statement falls within the hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of obtaining medical diagnosis or treatment, it may still be testimonial. See, e.g., State v. Stahl, 2005-Ohio-1137, 13, 20 912 (2005) (<HOLDING>). {59} In this case, the facts suggest that the
Holding statements: (A) holding a victims statements to emergency room doctor not testimonial where the purpose of the examination was for medical diagnosis and treatment (B) holding that statements made by a child who was brought to an emergency room by her mother were admissible when the child knew a doctor would conduct a medical exam the physician explained he was a doctor and he asked questions about medical history and performed a physical examination of the child (C) holding that there was insufficient evidence that alleged victim made statements to forensic nurseexaminer for purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment in part because there was no evidence regarding alleged victims past experience with medical facilities or medical providers (D) holding that statements in medical records given for the primary purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are nontestimonial (E) holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors
[EX A]:
holding that statements made by a child who was brought to an emergency room by her mother were admissible when the child knew a doctor would conduct a medical exam the physician explained he was a doctor and he asked questions about medical history and performed a physical examination of the child