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: as defined by Section 30-31-2(M), his acts of cultivating or growing mushrooms, even if by artificial means, are not prohibited by Section 30-31-20(A)(1). To interpret Section 30-31-20(A)(1) otherwise, as the State suggests, would require us to read language into the statute that is not there. See Marshall, 2004-NMCA-104, 10, 13, 136 N.M. 240, 96 P.3d 801 (refusing to read a personal use exception into the CSA, reasoning that to do so "would impermissibly read language into a statute that makes sense as written"). {11} Our holding is also supported by an analysis of the federal counterpart to Section 30-31-20(A)(1), 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (2000) of the Federal Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (federal act). See State v. Carr, 95 N.M. 755, 760, 626 P.2d 292, 297 (Ct.App.1981) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by State v.
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the presumptions applicability to federal statutes (B) holding that when a statute is patterned after a similar provision in another states statute it is proper to resort to judicial constructions placed on the statute by the courts of the state whose statute provided the model in determining the proper construction (C) recognizing a reliance on federal jurisprudence for the interpretation of louisianas arbitration statutes (D) holding that the federal register notice requirements do not apply to federal criminal statutes (E) recognizing that the csa is patterned after the federal act and relying on federal interpretation to the extent that the statutes are similar

A: (E)
****
Q: of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue. 6 . The Supreme Court of Connecticut has already rejected the ex loci delicti rule in workers' compensation actions in favor of "interest analysis" and the Restatement (Second) "most significant relationship" approach. See Simaitis v. Flood, 182 Conn. 24, 29-33, 437 A.2d 828, 831-32 (1980); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 181 (1971). 7 . See Conn.Gen.Stat. 52-555 (1977) (measure of wrongful death recovery equal to value of decedent's life and expenses); Marko v. Stop and Shop, Inc., 169 Conn. 550, 553, 364 A.2d 217, 219 (1975) (<HOLDING>); see also Halstead II, supra, 535 F.Supp. at
Holding statements: (A) holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective (B) holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control (C) recognizing that a violation of the mbta is a strict liability offense (D) recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability (E) recognizing strict product liability actions

A: (E)
****
Q: than .08 a the time of the accident, then the jury must also find that the defendant was guilty of the DUI offense. In this case, one expert fixed the defendant's blood alcohol level at the time of the crash as .185 or .19. A second expert testified that the defendant had the equivalent of eleven drinks of alcohol in his body at the time of the crash. According to the testimony, the maximum blood alcohol level he could have had at the time of the accident was .20, and the minimum was .12. The defendant had also ingested Valium, which further impaired him. The state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he drove with an unlawful blood alcohol level. As in Dodge, any presumption of impairment issues was a moot concern. See also Searles v. State, 816 So.2d 793, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>). The trial court believed that the granting of
Holding statements: (A) holding that the giving of the presumption of impairment instruction was harmless error when there is sufficient evidence of actual impairment such that there is no doubt that the jury would have found impairment even without the erroneous instruction (B) holding that unless an erroneous instruction was unlikely to have changed the result of the trial a reviewing court cannot say that giving the instruction was harmless error (C) holding that the giving of an erroneous reasonable doubt instruction can never be harmless error (D) holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction (E) holding that a trial judge is obliged to give a correct jury instruction notwithstanding that request for instruction was technically erroneous if the evidence generates the subject matter of the jury instruction

A:
(A)
****