Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the jury found that Moncivais did not commit the murder under the immediate influence of sudden passion and assessed punishment at 50 years’ confinement. Moncivais timely appealed. Sufficiency of the Evidence Moncivais contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury’s finding that he did not kill Erik under the immediate influence of sudden passion. A. Sudden Passion Proof of sudden passion can reduce an offense from a first degree felony to a second degree felony and the defendant must prove sudden passion by a preponderance of the evidence. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(d) (West 2003); see McKinney v. State, 179 S.W.3d 565, 569 (Tex.Crim.App.2005); see also Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 206, 211-12 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd) . “‘Sudden passion’ means passion directly
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a defendant must prove an affirmative defense at sentencing stage by a preponderance of evidence
B. holding at trial a criminal defendant has the burden to prove his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence
C. holding that appellant bears burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence
D. holding that defendant bears burden at punishment phase to prove issue of sudden passion by preponderance of evidence
E. holding that defendant bears burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that factors other than the condemned discrimination caused the decision of which claimant complains
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.