Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of 1989, which expressly abolished common law offenses and statutorily specified the conduct necessary to support a criminal prosecution in Tennessee. Id. at 728. We emphasized in Hill that “an indictment need not conform to traditionally strict pleading requirements.” Id. at 727. Since common law offenses no longer exist, “we now approach ‘attacks upon indictments, especially of this kind, from the broad and enlightened standpoint of common sense and right reason rather than from the narrow standpoint of petty preciosity, pettifogging, technicality or hair splitting fault finding.’ ” Hill, 954 S.W.2d at 728 (quoting United States v. Purvis, 580 F.2d 853, 857 (5th Cir.1978)). In many decisions since Hill discussing the sufficiency of indictments, we have repeate writing for the Court) . Another even more recent decision further
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense
B. holding that an indictment under  922g1 was not required to allege a substantial effect on interstate commerce an indictment which tracked the statutory language was sufficient
C. holding that instructions are sufficient which substantially follow the language of the statute or use equivalent language
D. holding that an indictment which cites the pertinent statute and uses its language will be sufficient to support a conviction
E. holding that an indictment that is substantially in the language of the code is sufficient inform and substance
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.