Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
170 Colo. 465, 468 P.2d 305 (1969). Thus, even assuming Jenkins intended to include legally adopted children when he referred to his daughters’ children in his 1944 will, he could not have intended to include equitably adopted children. The probate court found that Jenkins’ use of the terms “children, her lawful issue” and “child or children” in his will created latent ambiguity and the court thus resorted to extrinsic evidence to determine whether Jenkins intended to include adopted children as beneficiaries of his testamentary trust. Where evidence extrinsic to the will is considered, our standard of review is whether the probate court’s decision was clearly erroneous or completely unsupported by the evidence. See, e.g., M.D.C./Wood, Inc. v. Mortimer, 866 P.2d 1380, 1382 (Colo.1994) ; Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that appellate court in affirming trial courts decision may rely in part on a ground not presented to trial court
B. holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court
C. holding in a case considering whether the trial court should have conducted a competency hearing sua sponte that an appellate court may only consider those facts which were before the court when the trial commenced
D. holding that appellate court may judicially notice its own records
E. holding that only when facts are presented to the trial court by uncontested documentary evidence may an appellate court draw its own conclusions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.