Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the defendant did not know the nature of the act; (2) even if the defendant did, the defendant did not understand that the act was wrong; and (3) the defendant’s failure to know the nature of the act or that it was wrong was the result of a defect of reason caused by mental illness or mental deficiency. See State v. Persitz, 518 N.W.2d 843 (Minn.1994). The law presumes sanity and the defendant has the burden of proving each element of the defense of mental illness or mental deficiency by a preponderance of the evidence. See State v. Bouwman, 354 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn.1984). Regarding defenses relying upon a defendant’s use of alcohol or drugs, we have consistently held that mental illness caused by voluntary intoxication is not a defense. See State v. Patch, 329 N.W.2d 833, 836 (Minn.1983) ; see also State v. darken, 260 N.W.2d 463, 463
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defense counsels failure to present voluntary intoxication as a defense in a capitalmurder prosecution was not beyond the range of reasonable professional judgment and thus did not amount to ineffective assistance in view of inconsistency of intoxication defense with deliberateness of the defendants actions during the shootings
B. holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge
C. holding such intoxication to be voluntary
D. holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense
E. holding that under florida precedent trial court erred in excluding expert testimony on intoxication as voluntary intoxication was a valid defense to a specific intent crime and expert testimony is relevant to a disputed voluntary intoxication defense
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.