Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
portion of D-9, and would not submit an amended version, upon the lower court’s request. The defense counsel made this choice without objection. Townsend is therefore proeedurally barred from raising this issue at this point when he did not do so at trial or in his motion for new trial. Davis v. State, 660 So.2d 1228 (Miss.1995); Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263 (Miss.1994); Box v. State, 610 So.2d 1148 (Miss.1992). This Court agrees with the trial court’s offer to amend the instruction, which was declined by defense counsel. This Court has found previously that “when contraband is found on premises owned by the Defendant, a presumption of constructive possession arises.” Cunningham v. State, 583 So.2d 960, 962 (Miss.1991); see also Esparaza v. State, 595 So.2d 418, 426 (Miss.1992)  (emphasis added). Thus, this Court concludes
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding evidence insufficient to establish defendant had physical or constructive possession of heroin when no drugs were found on his person and the only drugs discovered on the premises which he shared with the codefendant were secreted out of plain view
B. holding that proof of the discovery of illegal drugs in plain view in the presence or two or more joint occupants of the premises is sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession
C. holding evidence insufficient for conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances when the drugs were not found on the person of or in the same room as the defendant but were only found on other persons on the premises
D. holding when drugs are found on premises exclusive control provides significant proof of constructive possession
E. holding that the defendants dominion control and knowledge may be inferred if he had exclusive possession of the premises on which the object was found emphasis added
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.