Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
recognized post-trial motion, defendant has forfeited his argument by failing to raise it in a posttrial motion. We disagree. In Enoch, the court held “when the defendant fails to comply with the statutory requirement to file a post[ ]trial motion,” review is “limited to constitutional issues which have properly been raised at trial and which can be raised later in a post-conviction hearing petition (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 122 — 1), sufficiency of the evidence, and plain error.” Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d at 190, 522 N.E.2d at 1131-32. Here, because defendant raises constitutional issues of due process and equal protection, these issues are reviewable on appeal under the constitutionality exception in Enoch. See People v. Cox, 295 Ill. App. 3d 666, 670, 693 N.E.2d 483, 485 (1998) . In the alternative, the State argues the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding defendants argument the court erroneously denied his motion to suppress was reviewable as a constitutional issue even though defendant failed to raise the issue in a written posttrial motion
B. holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus waived appellate review of that issue
C. holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified
D. holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal
E. holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.