Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
The court examined the history of amendments to the DUI statute and concluded that the Legislature’s addition of § 1201(e) at the same time it amended § 1201(a) to include subsections (a)(l)-(3), see 1973, No. 79, § 1, reflected a legislative concern with preventing multiple convictions based on the different ways the State could prove the operator was impaired. On this basis, the court concluded that § 3323(e) does not bar conviction of two counts of BWI/Fatal. ¶ 55. We need not resolve whether the court’s interpretation of the Legislature’s intent in enacting § 3323(e) is correct because multiple convictions are prohibited for a violation of § 3323(a), even without reliance on § 3323(e), in accordance with our holding in State v. LaBounty, 2005 VT 124, ¶ 10, 179 Vt. 199, 892 A.2d 203 . As we explained in interpreting a similar
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to grant a new trial the error must be more than harmless
B. holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured
C. recognizing that cjlearly buie requires more than ignorance or a constant assumption that more than one person is present in a residence
D. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required
E. holding a defendant may not be convicted of more than one count of dissemination of matter harmful to minors based on one occurrence even if there was more than one victim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.