Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(“The underlying idea [of double jeopardy] ... is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty"). 13 . Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 672-73, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). 14 . Id. at 676, 102 S.Ct. 2083. 15 . Bauder v. State, 921 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). 16 . Peterson, 117 S.W.3d at 815, n. 37 (citing Bauder, 921 S.W.2d at 699). 17 . Id. at 816-17. 18 . See, e.g., People v. Batts, 30 Cal.4th 660, 666, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 67, 68 P.3d 357, 361 (2003)  (emphasis in original); see also United States
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the double jeopardy clause bars retrial when the commonwealth intentionally undertakes to prejudice the defendant to the point of the denial of a fair trial
B. holding that the double jeopardy clause precludes a second trial once the reviewing court finds the evidence legally insufficient and that the only just remedy is the direction of a judgment of acquittal
C. holding that the state constitutional double jeopardy clause may bar retrial when the prosecutor subjectively believes that an acquittal was likely when he intentionally committed misconduct and the court determines from an objective perspective that the misconduct actually deprived the defendant of the reasonable prospect of an acquittal
D. holding that the dismissal of criminal charges for evidentiary insufficiency is an acquittal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause
E. holding that a sua sponte dismissal of the charges during trial was not an acquittal that barred retrial based on double jeopardy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.