Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that reason, we now hold that neither the prosecutor, defense counsel, nor the court may make any comment about the consequences of a particular verdict at any time during a criminal trial.”); State v. Okie, 987 A.2d 495, 497-500 (Me.2010); People v. Goad, 421 Mich. 20, 364 N.W.2d 584, 589-90 (1984) (not requiring the instruction because it would be impossible to fully explain the "consequences” of an NGRI verdict because they are contingent on future events); State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 246 N.W.2d 48, 52-53 (1976); Emanuel v. State, 412 So.2d 1187, 1190 (Miss.1982); State v. Buckman, 193 Mont. 145, 630 P.2d 743, 748 (1981); State v. Ryan, 233 Neb. 74, 444 N.W.2d 610, 631-32 (1989); Neely, 819 P.2d at 256-57 (due process did not require a consequence instruction) d 419, 426 (1980) ; State v. McDonald, 89 Wash.2d 256, 571 P.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a consequence instruction was properly refused
B. holding a consequence instruction is not necessary because the consequences of the verdict have no bearing upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant
C. holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given
D. holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction
E. holding that issue of inadequate jury instruction was waived because the instruction given was the one expressly requested by defense counsel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.