Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
— Ft. Worth 1988, pet ref’d) (hands were deadly weapon in murder case); Fegurgur v. State, 734 S.W.2d 103 (Tex.App. — Austin 1987, no pet.) (knife or knuckles were deadly weapon in murder case); Cervantes v. State, 706 S.W.2d 685 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no pet.) (board was deadly weapon in aggravated assault case); see also State ex rel Esparza v. Paxson, 855 S.W.2d 170 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1993, no pet.) (trial court did not have discretion to disregard affirmative finding that sock was deadly weapon in strangulation case). The category of “deadly weapons” has likewise been broadly interpreted in deciding whether the indictment provided sufficient notice that the State would seek a deadly weapon finding. See, e.g., Ex parte McKithan, 838 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim.App.1992) ; Pena v. State, 864 S.W.2d 147 (Tex. App. —
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that indictment alleging serious bodily injury caused by motor vehicle colliding with a fixed object provides sufficient notice of states intent to seek deadly weapon finding
B. holding floor can be used as deadly weapon
C. holding a motor vehicle can be a deadly weapon by the manner of its use
D. holding hand can be deadly weapon
E. recognizing that motor vehicle can be a deadly weapon in involuntary manslaughter case for purposes of providing notice in indictment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.