Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a perfect example of what the Supreme Court meant in Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), when it said that a capital defendant has the right to present at the sentencing phase all evidence about the “circumstances of the offense.” The circumstances of the murder in this case are key. Of course, it is true that Howard did not have to be the “triggerman” to be eligible for the death penalty. See Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 107 S.Ct. 1676, 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987). Eligibility, however, does not mean that capital punishment must be imposed. A jury can sentence a person to death in accordance with the Eighth Amendment only after it considers all of the. mitigating evidence the defendant wishes to present. See Lockett, 438 U.S. at 608, 98 S.Ct. at 2966-67 ; Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 107 S.Ct.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendants relatively minor participation in the crime is a mitigating factor that sentencer must consider
B. holding that a trial court must not preclude the jury from considering any aspect of the defendants character or circumstances as a mitigating factor
C. holding for a unanimous court that sentencer in capital case must consider an extensive list of nonstatutory mitigating factors
D. holding that sentencing scheme that permitted a limited range of mitigating evidence was unconstitutional because the eighth and fourteenth amendments require that the sentencer  not be precluded from considering as a mitigating factor any aspect of a defendants character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death
E. holding that a sentencer may not refuse to consider as a matter of law any relevant mitigating evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.