Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
applies to illegal contraband, the court found it “almost impossible to conceive of an object which may be lawfully possessed, but has no legitimate use.” Id. at 424. Therefore, the court determined that under the amended statute, “criminal instrument” is not limited to objects that can be used only for criminal purposes. Id. Having concluded that it was not bound by Universal or Fronatt, the court proceeded to reject Eodice’s interpretation of section 16.01 as well. The court believed that Eodice presented the exact type of scenario envisioned by the Legislature when it adopted section 16.01. Id. at 424-25. And, in stark contrast to Andrews, the court held that “the gravamen of the crime remains the actor’s intended use of the instrument.” Id. at 425. Contra Andrews, 814 S.W.2d at 841 . The court concluded that “the ontological
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the gravamen of the offense is the physical adaptation of the instrument
B. holding that the florida offense of attempted lewd assault on a child under the age of sixteen is a crime of violence even though the offense might be accomplished without use of physical force
C. holding that an offense is factually lesser included if the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense
D. holding that the deferential standard of review of a plan interpretation is appropriate only when the trust instrument allows the trustee to interpret the instrument and when the trust ee has in fact interpreted the instrument
E. holding an indictment legally insufficient when it failed to inform the defendant of the gravamen of the alleged offense
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.