Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Jan.10, 2003) (identical opinion, different defendant), appeal dismissed, 99 Ohio St.3d 1549, 795 N.E.2d 686 (2003); cf. State v. Young, Nos. 19472, 19473, 2003 WL 2004025, at *6 (Ohio Ct.App. May 2, 2003) (affirming trial court’s refusal to designate defendant as sexually oriented offender, and agreeing that abduction offenses “were not motivated in any way by sexual purpose, or with a purpose to gratify Young’s sexual needs, or to allow Young to engage in sexual activity” and there was no rational relationship between “governmental goal of protecting the public from sexually oriented offenders and the facts of this case”), appeal dismissed, 99 Ohio St.3d 1549, 795 N.E.2d 686 (2003); see also State v. Washington, No. 99-L-015, 2001 WL 1415568, at *3-4 (Ohio Ct.App. Nov. 2, 2001) . A New York court also has declared a similar
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding evidence of sexual assault relevant to show defendants motive in kidnapping victim
B. holding evidence of past uncharged sexual encounters admissible in child sexual abuse case to show relationship between defendant and alleged victim
C. holding that classifying the defendant as a sexually oriented offender after he was convicted of kidnapping minors without a sexual purpose violated the defendants right to substantive due process where the statutory definition of sexual offender included one who had committed certain criminal offenses against a minor regardless of sexual intent
D. holding that no rational jury could conclude there was no intent to distribute where the defendants possessed 3000 pounds of marijuana
E. holding that the designation of a defendant as sexually oriented offender for kidnapping his child where there was no evidence of sexual motivation bore no rational relationship to purpose of the statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.