Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
contact with each other was the municipal court’s direction to him as a condition of the suspension of his 180-day jail sentence. According to Salupo, the girlfriend would not have been committing an unlawful act if she met him. {¶ 7} The state submitted a copy of Salupo’s prior conviction for telecommunications harassment and domestic violence to the trial court. The order provided, “[Salupo] is to have no contact with [his former girlfriend] as a condition of jail suspended.” The state did not present evidence of any order prohibiting the girlfriend from having contact with Salupo. Had the girlfriend met with Salupo, she could not have been charged with violating the condition of his suspended sentence. See State v. Lucas, 100 Ohio St.3d 1, 2003-Ohio-4778, 795 N.E.2d 642, at syllabus . Salupo, therefore, did not try to induce the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing aiding and abetting trespass
B. recognizing both aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting conversion
C. holding that an individual who is the protected subject of a    protection order may not be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the restrainee under the protection order in violating said order
D. recognizing aiding and abetting conversion
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.