Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and without proper instructions, the probability of prejudice is great); see also State v. White, 246 S.C. 502, 144 S.E.2d 481 (1965) (finding where the jury had absolute discretion with regard to the issue of mercy, it was impossible to determine whether the solicitor’s improper argument actually prejudiced defendant; however, the probability of prejudice was great, and defendant was entitled to a new trial). The solicitor’s improper comments prevented petitioner from having the jury fairly consider the possible sentencing alternatives. Further, the jury instructions failed to cure the prejudice caused by these comments. Thus, because the probability for prejudice is great, we grant petitioner a new trial on the burglary charge. See Chubb v. State, 303 S.C. 395, 401 S.E.2d 159 (1991) . As to the portion of the closing argument
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that determination of appropriate sentence to be imposed should ordinarily be determined by the trial court on remand rather than at the appellate level
B. holding that defense counsel need only consult and be governed by his clients wishes when the question arises as to whether or not a plea of guilty should be entered trial by jury waived or whether the defendant should take the witness stand in his own defense
C. holding because determination of guilt and whether mercy should be recommended should be made in one proceeding by the same jury petitioner is entitled to a new trial on the burglary charge
D. holding that the issue of defendants actual knowledge should not be resolved on summary judgment but should be left to the trier of fact
E. holding new trial should not have been granted because jury was properly instructed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.