Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
merits or his affirmative defense of insanity in these cireumstances. The Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury requires "criminal convie-tions to rest upon a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the erime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Hill, 934 P.2d 821, 827 (Colo.1997) (quoting U.S. v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995)). However, a judgment of NGRI does not constitute a conviction; rather, it operates as an acquittal of the charged offenses. See Jacobs v. Carmel, 869 P.2d 207, 209 (Colo.1994) (stating that a person committed after a finding of insanity "will not actually have been convicted of the crime charged"); see also Parks v. Dist. Court, 180 Colo. 202, 503 P.2d 1029, 1033 (1972) . € 19 Prior to the change in procedure under
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge
B. holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense
C. holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity
D. recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense
E. holding that denigrating insanity defense was inappropriate
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.