Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in the sexual battery statute, we must hold it was insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction over, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment of defendant’s guilt of, that offense. An arrest of judgment is proper when the indictment “wholly fails to charge some offense cognizable at law or fails to state some essential and necessary element of the offense of which the defendant is found guilty.” State v. Gregory, 223 N.C. 415, 418, 27 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1943). Further, “[w]hen an indictment has failed to allege the essential elements of the crime charged, it has failed to give the trial court subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, and the reviewing court must arrest judgment.” State v. Bullock, 154 N.C. App. 234, 244, 574 S.E.2d 17, 23 (2 t. App. 1995) . However, this Court reached a contrary result
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendant could be convicted of sexual battery a lesser crime not included in the offense for which he was indicted where the defendant requested that sexual battery be submitted to the jury
B. holding that when an appellant affirmatively declines a bill of particulars he can not on appeal claim that he was misled when convicted of a lesser included offense
C. holding that the defendant who was indicted for first degree rape and convicted of sexual battery had no remedy on appeal when he requested that the erroneous lesser nonincluded charge be submitted to the jury
D. holding that the offense of sexual battery requires the state prove the victims lack of consent regardless of the victims age and charge the jury on the same
E. holding there are no grounds to appeal when defendant receives the remedy he requested from the trial court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.