Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to testify, violates his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under the United States Constitution as well as his confrontation rights under the Texas Constitution. The State argues that, because Hale does not point out any distinction in the analysis we are to apply under the United States Constitution Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and under the Texas Constitution, we should not apply a separate analysis and should overrule his second point. We agree, and we analyze Hale’s contention under the United States Constitution Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause only. See, e.g., Lagrone v. State, 942 S.W.2d 602, 614 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 917, 118 S.Ct. 305, 139 L.Ed.2d 235 (1997); Varnes v. State, 63 S.W.3d 824, 829 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) . We overrule Hale’s second point. We review de
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the idaho constitution provides no greater protection from double jeopardy than does the federal constitution
B. holding that appellate court assumes appellant claims no greater protection under state constitution than that provided by federal constitution when state and federal claims not briefed separately
C. holding missouri constitution requires stricter separation of church and state than does federal constitution
D. recognizing that oath taken to honor state constitution makes it the justices duty to apply the state constitution when it does not conflict with the federal constitution
E. recognizing exception under state constitution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.