Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that “evidence showing a murder ‘to have been deliberate, premeditated and wilful could be so clear and uncontroverted that a trial court could properly refuse to instruct on the lesser included offenses.’ ” Buchanan v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 389, 409, 384 S.E.2d 757, 769 (1989), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 1063 (1990) (quoting Painter v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 360, 366, 171 S.E.2d 166, 171 (1969)). The evidence in the present case does not support the defendant’s proffered instructions. An instruction on first degree murder was not warranted because the video tape clearly established that Burnett was shot in the chest during the commission of armed robbery at the convenience store. See Bennett v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 448, 470, 374 S.E.2d 303, 317 (1988), cert, denied, 490 U.S. 1028 (1989) . Thus, the sole issue was whether the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that indictment for murder in the first degree charges murder by whatever means it may have been committed regardless of the theory of murder presented to the grand jury
B. holding first degree murder instruction not warranted because defendant adduced no evidence that victim was not murdered during commission of robbery
C. holding that a conviction of first degree felony murder based on the predicate felony of robbery does not establish the pecuniary gain aggravator set forth in  13703f5 with respect to the murder
D. holding that the crime of attempted first degree felony murder does not exist
E. holding that a robbery defendant was not entitled to a compulsion instruction in the absence of a claim that he or the victim was the target of a specific threat forcing the defendant to participate in the robbery
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.