Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the trial court to hold a hearing on the issue of a defendant's absence at trial in order to allow the defendant to rebut the initial presumption of waiver. In support of this position, he cites Willis, 525 N.E.2d 610. In Ellis, the defendant failed to appear for trial, and the trial court later questioned him, without his attorney present, about the reason for his absence. Another panel of this court ordered a new hearing regarding the defendant's absence at trial, finding that "Ellis was entitled to a hearing affording him an opportunity to explain his absence," and that it was a critical stage of the proceedings at which he was entitled to representation. Id. at 612. In support of its conclusion, this Court cited Gilbert v. State, 182 Ind.App. 286, 290, 395 N.E.2d 429, 482 (1979) . Holtz argues that this Court's position in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that before an error can be held harmless the reviewing court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the defendants conviction
B. holding that reviewing court may consider trial evidence in reviewing denial of motion to suppress
C. holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board
D. holding that a reviewing court has an obligation to satisfy itself of the jurisdiction of the court below
E. holding that for reviewing court to look solely at the facts initially before the court regarding defendants absence would be patently unfair
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.