Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the amount of cocaine contained in the residue was so minute that it could not effectively be weighed or measured. Further, Jones’s counsel contended in his closing argument that, although the residue itself was visible, it had to be tested multiple times before the police could make a positive determination that it contained cocaine. We conclude that Jones’s counsel placed in dispute the issue of whether Jones knew the illicit nature of the substance on the pipe. Under Delva, it was fundamental error for the trial court to fail to properly instruct the jury on that disputed element of the crime charged against Jones. Since such fundamental error is not subject to harmless error analysis, Jones’s conviction must be reversed. See Reed v. State, 887 So.2d 366, 369-70 (Fla.2002) . Section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002),
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing plain or fundamental error
B. holding that the omission of an element is not a structural error subject to automatic reversal but rather  where objected to  is subject to harmless error analysis
C. holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error
D. holding that failure to give proper instruction regarding disputed element of crime charged was fundamental error requiring reversal and stating that fundamental error is not subject to harmless error review
E. holding that when none of the required explanations were given that was fundamental error requiring reversal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.