Detailed 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.
Q: subsequent actions may help establish mens rea for first-degree murder, "when they reflect a prior state of mind, particularly where they are fairly recent and in some significant way connected with prior material events") (internal quotation marks omitted). 22 . Austin, 127 U.S.App.D.C. at 188, 382 F.2d at 137; see also, e.g., Fortson v. United States, 979 A.2d 643, 656 (D.C.2009) ("While a passerby possibly would have characterized the kicking and stomping of Whitfield as 'frenzied,' " evidence allowed a finding that the defendant had "ample time to reflect on his actions and ample time for any initial rage ... to peter out," and thus had acted with premeditation and deliberation), reh'g granted and op. modified, 987 A.2d 1118 (D.C.2010). 23 . 903 A.2d 818, 830 (D.C.2006) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). 24 . Our review of appellant's claim is de
Holding statements: (A) holding it was not a surprise or unfair to the defendant for the state to pursue a theory of aiding and abetting at trial when the charging document did not refer to aiding and abetting (B) holding inter alia that conviction of firstdegree premeditated murder on an aiding and abetting theory requires the prosecution to prove that the accomplice acted with premeditation and deliberation and intent to kill (C) holding that where both firstdegree and felony murder were possible bases for a murder conviction a jury instruction that suggested the jury could rely on felony murder as the predicate offense for a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was improper because under arizona law a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder requires a specific intent to kill (D) holding that in order to convict a defendant of firstdegree murder on a theory of accomplice liability proof of his own premeditation is required (E) recognizing both aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting conversion
A:
(B)