Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the traditional purposes for similar fact evidence. Id. In this case, the prior kidnapping was clearly not similar fact evidence. Therefore, the focus of the inquiry is on whether it is relevant to the issue of premeditation; that is, whether the prior kidnapping is evidence that the murder in this case was not a heat-of-passion crime. And even if this evidence is probative, an important question still must be asked: whether the prejudicial effect of admitting the prior crime substantially outweighs its probative value. Although McWatters does not support the view that the prior kidnapping was relevant, I recognize that the prior kidnapping may be relevant under the case law relied upon by the trial court below in allowing the evidence. See Spencer v. State, 645 So.2d 377 (Fla.1994) ; King v. State, 436 So.2d 50 (Fla.1983)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in order to convict a defendant of firstdegree murder on a theory of accomplice liability proof of his own premeditation is required
B. holding that although premeditation is outside the heartland of seconddegree murder guideline upward departure from seconddegree murder guideline based on premeditation was improper because commission considered the defendants state of mind in assigning a higher base offense level to firstdegree murder than to seconddegree murder
C. holding as relevant in a murder case a history of domestic violence involving defendant and his victim
D. holding that evidence of two prior incidents of violence by the defendant toward his wife in the months before the murder were relevant to premeditation where defendant claimed that it was a heat of passion killing
E. holding any error in admitting allegedly irrelevant testimony that the defendant loved music was harmless in capital murder prosecution where the defendant admitted killing the victim and evidence supported the conviction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.