Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
judge refused to allow the testimony. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in excluding this evidence. An accused in a criminal case is allowed to introduce evidence of a specific good character trait to show that it is improbable that he committed the offense charged, where that character trait is relevant to the offense. See Tex.R. Evid. 404(a)(1); Thomas v. State, 669 S.W.2d 420, 423 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, pet. ref'd). If evidence of a person’s character or character trait is admissible, proof may be made through reputation or opinion testimony. See Tex.R. Evid. 405(a). However, specific instances of conduct are inadmissible to show an inference that the accused did or did not commit the offense. See, e.g., Schmidt v. State, 449 S.W.2d 39, 40 (Tex.Crim.App.1969) ; Garcia v. State, 819 S.W.2d 667, 668
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendant may be entitled to selfdefense instruction even though he did not testify
B. holding that it may not
C. holding a defendant may testify that he lacked intent while also arguing that if the jury concludes otherwise then it should consider whether his intent was the product of government inducement
D. holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify
E. holding that while the defendant may offer reputation evidence on his lawabiding character he may not testify that he has never been in trouble
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.