Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
965 (2008); State v. Mendoza, 157 Wn.2d 582, 587, 590-91,141 P.3d 49 (2006); In re Pers. Restraint of Isadore, 151 Wn.2d 294, 297-98, 88 P.3d 390 (2004). 11 In fact, St. Pierre explicitly stated that “some errors which result in per se prejudice on direct review will also be per se prejudicial on collateral attack ....” St. Pierre, 118 Wn.2d at 329. 12 I note the majority’s attempt to distance itself from this position. Majority at 598 n.3. The majority is correct to do that. As discussed below, however, the majority’s analysis could be used to conflate harmless error review of constitutional issues with harmless error review of nonconstitutional issues. 13 See generally Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-11, 111 S. Ct. 1246, 113 L. Ed. 2d 302 (1991) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring) . 14 Accord. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt
B. holding admission of coerced confession to he a classic trial error similar in both degree and kind to the erroneous admission of other types of evidence and thus reviewable for harmlessness
C. holding that even the admission of a coerced confession may be harmless error and noting that  the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendants guilt or innocence 
D. holding that we would not review a claim of error regarding the admission of evidence when the defendant stipulated to its admission at trial
E. holding that a new trial was the remedy for erroneous admission of rule 404b evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.