Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
{2} After leaving a bar at closing time, Defendant claims he and his brother were threatened with violence by an angry mob. Both of them then sought refuge in Defendant’s truck. As the alleged attack continued, Defendant testified that he started the vehicle and began to drive “slowly” out of the parking lot. Almost immediately, police arrived on the scene, determined Defendant’s blood-alcohol level to be .14, and arrested him for DWI. {3} The metropolitan court, acting as fact finder in a non-jury trial, found that Defendant had not acted reasonably in the face of the alleged threat. As a result, the court found that Defendant’s act of driving while under the in 116 N.M. 793, 796, 867 P.2d 1175, 1178 (1994), with State v. Lucero, 98 N.M. 204, 206-07, 647 P.2d 406, 408-09 (1982) . This is a question of law that we review de
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that strict compliance is not required
B. recognizing strict product liability actions
C. holding that duress is unavailable to defendants charged with the strict liability offense of child abuse
D. recognizing that a violation of the mbta is a strict liability offense
E. holding that notice not required because cercla is a strict liability statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.