Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
articulate its intent. Moreover, we can imagine an altogether rational reason the legislature might decide to write a statute with a strict Hability punishment provision. As Judge Staton wrote for the Court of Appeals, "A dealer's lack of knowledge of his proximity to the schools does not make the illegal drug any less harmful to the youth in whose hands it may eventually come to rest." Williford v. State, 571 N.E.2d 310, 313 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). Accordingly, we hold that the conviction was not deficient for failure to prove that Walker knew he was within 1,000 feet of a school when he committed the crime. Walker also argues that the evidence of dealing was insufficient because he did not have the $20 bill given to him by Witten in his possession at the time of his arrest. In ligh 988)  (collecting cases); Mullins v. State, 486
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that proof of scienter is required to succeed on a claim under  1991a1 but not under  1991a2 or  1991a3
B. holding obscenity statute required proof of scienter
C. holding trial court should have required segregation because tort claims entailed proof of facts unnecessary for proof of the contract claim
D. holding child molesting statute required proof of scienter
E. holding that proof of an explicit agreement is not required
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.