Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is required to prove; otherwise, there would be too great a risk that a jury, by placing undue emphasis on the affirmative defense, might presume that the government had already met its burden of proof’). Because the sentencing process, even after Apprendi is “no more exacting than the process of establishing guilt,” Patterson’s reasoning applies with full force to Snype’s challenge to the burden of proof assignment in § 3559(c)(3)(A). United States v. Bradshaw, 281 F.3d at 295 (relying on Patterson in holding that “a paradigm that allows the defendant to raise an affirmative defense during the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings, but then shifts the burden of proof to him to establish the defense, does not violate due process”); see also United States v. Brown, 276 F.3d at 932 ; United States v. Wicks, 132 F.3d 383, 389
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that on a review of the sufficiency of the evidence the court determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt
B. holding that apprendi leaves undisturbed the principle that while the prosecution must indeed prove all the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt the legislation creating the offense can place the burden of proving affirmative defenses on the defendant internal citations omitted
C. recognizing congresss power to place burden of proving affirmative defense on defendant as long as state proves all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
D. holding state must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt and a scheme that shifts the burden of proof to the defendant by presuming a fact upon proof of the other elements of the offense violates due process
E. holding due process clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements included in the definition of the charged offense and new york law that requires the defendant in a second degree murder prosecution to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance in order to reduce the crime to manslaughter when no element of the charged offense is presumed does not violate the due process clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.