Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
an agreement, it is not contained within the record. Instead, the bystander’s report simply indicates that the parties agreed that the trial court “would hear all three cases together.” Therefore, based upon my review of the record, it is apparent that the trial court conducted a single trial of all three cases. See People v. Lopez, 367 Ill. App. 3d 817, 819 (2006) (noting that appellant has burden of providing sufficiently complete record to support claims of error and that any doubts that may arise from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against appellant). By agreeing to a single trial on all of the cases, defendant cannot now complain that the trial court heard evidence of defendant’s conduct in the other cases. See People v. Gresham, 104 Ill. App. 3d 81, 87 (1982) . Finally, I disagree with the majority’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the failure to file a proper motion to dismiss raising a constitutional challenge to a criminal statute waives the issue on appeal
B. holding that defendants failure to file a motion to sever waives objection to single trial on multiple charges
C. holding failure to assert an objection based upon the confrontation clause at trial waives the issue for appeal
D. holding that failure to file a postjudgment motion on alleged error of law relating to ruling on exception to the statute of frauds that was committed for first time in the judgment waives any objection to that ruling and that in the absence of any other formal objection the issue is not preserved for appellate review
E. holding that defendants general objection to states specific questions regarding defendants failure to appear before grand jury was sufficient to put trial court on notice of objection based on defendants constitutional right to remain silent
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.