Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to find at least one aggravating circumstance before it may impose death. See Gregg, 428 U.S. at 162-67, 96 S.Ct. at 2920-22 (reviewing Georgia sentencing scheme); Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 247-51, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 2964-66, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976) (reviewing Florida sentencing scheme). By doing so, the sentencing authority narrows the class of persons eligible for the death penalty according to an objective legislative definition. See Zant, 462 U.S. at 878-79, 103 S.Ct. at 2743-44. The legislature must provide “clear and objective standards,” so that the sentencing authority is given “specific and detailed guidance,” and the process of imposing the death penalty is “rationally reviewable” on appeal. Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 1765, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) . Appellant contends, in part, that the use of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a sentencing judge sitting without a jury may not find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty
B. holding that an aggravating circumstance in the georgia death penalty statute was unconstitutionally vague
C. holding the same nevada aggravating circumstance unconstitutionally vague under godfrey
D. holding that oklahomas especially heinous atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague
E. holding a similar nevada aggravating circumstance unconstitutionally vague under godfrey
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.