Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
28-29 (homemade key designed to burglarize coin-operated machines). The Legislature cannot foresee what these objects might be. The Legislature may have intended section 16.01 to cover possession of these objects, which would otherwise go unpunished. Third, we are not convinced that the Legislature intended section 16.01 to be construed more broadly, in all respects, than the statute it replaced. Under the plain language of the former statute, it applied to objects “commonly used” to commit burglary or safecracking. But under section 16.01, objects must be “specially designed, made, or adapted for use in the commission of an offense.” “Commonly used” allows for broader application than “specially designed, made, or adapted.” See Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) . We also note that the practice commentary
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that courts must generally give effect to the plain meaning of a statute because that is the best evidence of the legislatures intent
B. holding that we must give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of a statutes language
C. holding legislatures intent is determined from plain and common meaning of words used
D. recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect
E. holding that an appellate court must give a statute its clear and plain meaning when the statute is unambiguous
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.