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]: documents that may be exempt from disclosure under the Sunshine Law. See Chasnoff v. Bd. of Police Comm'rs, 334 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (noting trial court reviewed investigative file log of 59 documents in camera to determine disclosure under Sunshine Law); Bill, 935 S.W.2d at 663 (noting trial court granted in camera review of retirement benefit records of government employees; subsequently finding records exempt from disclosure under Sunshine Law); accord State ex rel. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctr. v. Keet, 678 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Mo. banc 1984) (in discovery context, trial court has discretion to examine privileged documents in camera to determine whether redaction and production of documents is appropriate); State ex rel. Fusselman v. Belt. 893 S.W.2d 898, 901 (Mo.App. W.D.1995) (<HOLDING>). In light of the Sunshine Law and the Missouri
Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense (B) holding that where a party claims a document is privileged and the trial court fails to conduct an in camera review or balancing test the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of the law (C) holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant (D) holding in camera review by trial court to determine whether crime stoppers information contained brady information would meet the balance of defendants constitutional rights against the states interest in fostering law enforcement (E) holding trial court should have reviewed records requested by criminal defendant in camera to determine whether they contained exculpatory evidence while protecting against unnecessary publication of privileged information
[EX A]: holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense

[EX Q]: and sold it to nonre-latives. We conclude that the evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the property is marital. The form of the transaction, while not dispositive, is compelling in the instant case because of Klem's knowledge of, and experience with, joint tenancies. Klem was fully aware of how joint tenancies operated. As the husband of Hazel, he became the sole owner of Hazel's family property as a surviving joint tenant, a fact he acknowledged during his deposition. Subsequent to his sole ownership of the property, he knowingly deeded the property to Larry and Colleen as joint tenants. In so doing, he gave both parties an interest in the property. See Melina v. Melina, 411 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Minn.App.1987); Erdahl v. Erdahl, 384 N.W.2d 566, 567 (Minn.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). Finally, also indicative of the donor's
Holding statements: (A) holding that spouse could not claim exemption in property that was only property of other spouses estate (B) holding that devise of real estate to one spouse was nonmarital and noting that had testator intended such property to be devised as marital property he could have designated appellant as a joint tenant (C) holding money received from inheritance as nonmarital property presumptively became marital property when placed in joint account under arkansas law (D) holding that transferring joint property into one partys name for estate planning purposes does not convert marital property into nonmarital property (E) holding that circuit court erred in failing to consider that marital property in the form of marital earnings was used to pay debt against nonmarital property
[EX A]: holding that spouse could not claim exemption in property that was only property of other spouses estate

[EX Q]: S.B. 6933. This interpretation of ER 404(b) is consistent with a majority of federal and state courts. 1 Edward J. Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence 29-31 (1998). 73 State v. Ferguson, 100 Wn.2d 131, 133-34, 667 P.2d 68 (1983) ("This court has often invoked an exception in similar cases to permit evidence of collateral sexual misconduct when it shows a lustful disposition directed toward the offended female. 'Such evidence is admitted for the purpose of showing the lustful inclination of the defendant toward the offended female, which in turn makes it more probable that the defendant committed the offense charged.' " (citations omitted) (quoting State v. Thorne, 43 Wn.2d 47, 60-61, 260 P.2d 331 (1953))). 74 State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11, 21, 74 P.3d 119 (2003) (<HOLDING>). 75 See, e.g., State v. Herzog, 73 Wn. App.
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the common scheme or plan exception is generally applied in cases involving sexual crimes where evidence of acts prior and subsequent to the act charged in the indictment is held admissible as tending to show continued illicit intercourse between the same parties (B) holding that a prior conviction may be a bad act for purposes of rule 404b if substantial evidence supports a finding that defendant committed both acts and the probative value is not limited solely to tending to establish the defendants propensity to commit a crime such as the crime charged (C) holding that the high level of similarity between the charged crime and prior bad acts necessary to prove common scheme or plan does not require evidence of common features to show a unique method of committing the crime (D) holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime (E) holding that despite some differences between the charged offense and the collateral crime similarities between the two were striking enough to establish a unique crime pattern
[EX A]:
recognizing that the common scheme or plan exception is generally applied in cases involving sexual crimes where evidence of acts prior and subsequent to the act charged in the indictment is held admissible as tending to show continued illicit intercourse between the same parties