Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Solomon, 399 F.3d 1231, 1239 (10th Cir.2005). The right to present a defense arises under the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process. Id. We will reverse the district judge’s decision excluding evidence only if the proffered evidence is both relevant and material (i.e., its exclusion would affect a trial’s outcome). United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez, 519 F.3d 1236, 1238-39 (10th Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 162, 172 L.Ed.2d 117 (2008). Here, even assuming that the district judge erred by excluding the testimony, we conclude that the exclusion was harmless and Mr. Eastom’s right to present a defense was not violated. Mr. Murray’s testimony would not have affected the trial’s outcome. See Velarde, 214 F.3d at 1211 ; Hemandez-Hemandez, 519 F.3d at 1238-39
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the giving of an erroneous reasonable doubt instruction can never be harmless error
B. holding that a substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jurys verdict
C. holding that nonconstitutional error is harmless if it did not have substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jurys verdict
D. holding that an erroneous decision to exclude evidence is considered harmless unless the error had a substantial influence on the outcome or leaves this court in grave doubt as to whether it had such an effect
E. holding that erroneous admission of evidence was harmless where it had no substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury verdict judged in relation to the total evidence on the issue in question internal quotation marks omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.