Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or reopen hearing on the motion. The record is incomplete, but it appears that the trial court had not yet ruled on the initial motion to suppress. As a result, the second motion presented the trial court with the opportunity to correct the alleged error and the State was also provided the opportunity to present the allegedly material witnesses. (See People v. Terrell (1989), 132 Ill. 2d 178, 202.) Accordingly, we conclude that defendant sufficiently raised this issue at trial so as to preclude application of waiver in this instance. (See People v. Harper (1967), 36 Ill. 2d 398, 402 (recognizing error despite the absence of a timely objection in light of the “peculiar circumstances” of case which suggested constitutional infringement); see also In re J.C. (1979), 69 Ill. App. 3d 289 .) We turn to consider whether the State met
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding objection need not occur at suppression hearing
B. holding that claim was preserved for subsequent appeal by objection at original sentencing hearing
C. holding appellant waived argument by failing to assert it at suppression hearing
D. holding prosecutors withdrawal of standing objection at suppression hearing waived issue on appeal
E. holding representation at a suppression hearing by lawyer disbarred on final day of hearing not per se ineffective
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.