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.

[Q]: in a 3-2 decision does not settle the intent issue, because Honkanen did not consider the difference between intent to injure or inflict pain and intent to correct. Additionally, Honkanen's rationale may be outdated in light of the 2001 amendments to NRS 48.061, which expand the use of bad-act evidence in domestic violence cases, 2001 Nev. Stat., ch. 360, 1, at 169; see NRS 33.018(1)(a) (defining "domestic violence" to include battery on an accused's minor child), and Bigpond, which recognizes that character evidence can be admissible so long as it has a credible, non- propensity purpose, such as explaining the relationship dynamics between a domestic-violence victim and the accused. 128 Nev. at 111, 270 P.3d at 1246; see also Harris v. State, 195 P.3d 161, 182 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008) (<HOLDING>). Cherry, J., concurring in part and dissenting
Holding statements: (A) holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper (B) holding that a new trial was the remedy for erroneous admission of rule 404b evidence (C) recognizing that the holding in harvey v state 604 p2d 586 590 alaska 1979 a case similar to honkanen had been abrogated by the amendment of alaskas rule 404b to allow admission of prior incidents of domestic violence as an exception to the general rule against admitting such evidence (D) recognizing general rule (E) recognizing this as the general rule
[A]: holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper

[Q]: 39:4-88(b), the mandate to drive within a single lane to the extent practicable applies, whether or not a deviation from that lane imposes a risk to another driver. The statute's second clause addresses a related, but discrete, mandate of the Code. It requires a driver to ascertain the safety of switching lanes before conducting a lane change. N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b). Unlike the violation described in the first clause of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b), the violation described in the second clause is avoided if a driver, in a roadway with multiple lanes traveling in the same direction, first determines that departure from a lane may be conducted safely. The Appellate Division's limitation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b) to the violation identified in the statute's second clause would render t .App.1998) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the courts of our sister states,
Holding statements: (A) holding that due regard describes a standard between ordinary care and recklessness (B) holding that tex transp code ann 545060a describes one offense (C) holding that no offense alleged where affidavit described offense as felony (D) holding that an indictment charging one offense during the commission of another crime need not allege the elements of the latter offense (E) holding that the statute describes but one offense which can be committed by either or both of two methods
[A]: holding that due regard describes a standard between ordinary care and recklessness

[Q]: issued a press release when this occurred, claiming that "[t]aken as a whole and not selectively out of context these documents more than demonstrate that our company responsibly researched, manufactures and markets its products to adult smokers." Ex. to Def.'s Mem. of Law, Tab F. In May 1998, State v. Philip Morris settled. Incorporated in the consent judgment was a provision permitting the plaintiffs to seek court approval for public disclosure of those documents that were subject to a protective order, over which the defendants had asserted a privilege but for which no privilege was found to exist. The plaintiffs sought said approval, and the court initially granted it. * The defendants opposed the order, and subsequently secured a stay . of Am., 91 F.R.D. 84, 90 (E.D.N.Y.1981) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, nothing in New York case law
Holding statements: (A) holding that voluntary testimony before a grand jury did not waive the privilege at trial because it is settled that a waiver of the fifth amendment privilege is limited to the particular proceeding in which the waiver occurs (B) holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the protection of the work product doctrine (C) holding that disclosure to outside accountants did not waive the work product privilege since the accountants are not considered a conduit to a potential adversary (D) holding that when a party discloses an item to an adversary even in the context of settlement a waiver of the work product privilege is effected (E) holding declaration or affidavit must support work product claim for documents listed solely as work product on privilege log
[A]:
holding that voluntary testimony before a grand jury did not waive the privilege at trial because it is settled that a waiver of the fifth amendment privilege is limited to the particular proceeding in which the waiver occurs