Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
evidence of impairment of ability to drive due to the influence of alcohol. Alternatively, if chemical testing was performed in accordance with the statute, the crime may be proved by forensic evidence that the defendant’s alcohol concentration exceeded the statutory percentage. Idaho v. Andrus, 118 Idaho 711, 800 P.2d 107, 109 (1990). Here, neither Loader nor Ojeda were subjected to any chemical testing to determine their blood alcohol content at the time of the accident. As a result, Wood must prove Loader was intoxicated for purposes of the Idaho statute by “evidence showing consumption of alcohol and some discernible impairment related to the motorist’s ability to drive.” State v. Bronnenberg, 124 Idaho 67, 856 P.2d 104, 107 (Idaho App.1993); Andrus, 800 P.2d at 110-11 . Only Loader and Browning testified in person
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that medical expenses must be proven to be both reasonable and necessary
B. holding that reliance must be proven by some evidence
C. holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence
D. holding that impairment must be noticeable or perceptible proven by observations of some type of ascertainable conduct or effect and relate to the ability to drive
E. holding all exceptions to discharge under  523a must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.