Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
found defendant incompetent to stand trial). Second, the rules of construction indicate a strong preference for harmonizing the rule and the statute. See State ex rel. Quintana v. Schnedar, 115 N.M. 573, 575, 855 P.2d 562, 564 (1993) (instructing courts to presume that “the legislature did not intend to enact a law inconsistent with existing law” and to disfavor “judicial repeal of legislation by implication”). Third, Child’s interpretation is logical and avoids absurd results. See State v. Mendoza, 108 N.M. 446, 452, 774 P.2d 440, 446 (1989) (“Where the rule is unambiguous, we interpret it literally and give effect to the plain meaning of the rule ... unless to do so leads to an absurd or unjust result.”). See also State v. Ware, 115 N.M. 339, 342, 850 P.2d 1042, 1045 (Ct.App.1993) . {13} In contrast, we are not persuaded by the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that courts should avoid interpretations of statutes which would produce absurd results
B. holding that virginia courts must avoid absurd results
C. holding that contracts should be interpreted to avoid absurd results
D. holding that the rules of criminal procedure should be common knowledge to lawenforcement and judicial officers who have the duty and responsibility to authorize searches
E. recognizing that to avoid absurd results the court has a duty to interpret the rules of criminal procedure with logic and common sense
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.