Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that information.”). Rather, Beckley sought to supplement that report with relevant evidence relating to the topic of most concern to the trial court-information that was otherwise absent. 5 . While there is some contention in the brief that the motion for a continuance was not filed as quickly as it could have been because of informal discussions occurring between the State and Beckley's trial counsel relating to further psychological testing, that evidence is not contained in the record and we do not consider it here. 6 . Even if the dissent were correct in noting that the trial court “was well informed as to the detail and extent of Beckley’s perverse conduct,” infra ¶ 36, that is not the question. The question is whether Beckley was denied the statutory right to pre (S.D.1988) . Beckley's motion was filed six days prior to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the hearing officer did not abuse her discretion in denying a continuance because she acted within reason by accommodating the attorney
B. holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance to allow defendant to present mitigating evidence in the form of letters and affidavits from family members when they were not requested until the day before the hearing
C. holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance requested by telephone when the party requesting same was served with notice of the proceeding less than one hour before the hearing
D. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form
E. holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.