Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
179, 183, 86 P.3d 139 (2004), our Supreme Court held that the 2002 amendments to the SRA require that sentencing courts include previously “washed out” prior convictions in calculating a defendant’s offender score at sentencing for crimes committed on or after June 13, 2002. Since Winings committed his crime on March 24, 2003, the sentencing court properly included his previously “washed out” convictions. ¶43 A majority of the panel having determined that the following portion of the opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered. ¶44 Affirmed. Quinn-Brintnall, C.J., and Houghton, J., concur. 1 The minute orders (one minute order pertains to the first degree burglary counts P.3d 269 (2001) . And in State v. Royse, 66 Wn.2d 552, 555-57,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the nature and circumstances of the charged offenses and the weight of the evidence against the defendant of  3142g1 and 2 are best assessed in the charging district
B. holding that failure to identify the defendant in the information is an omission of an essential element because the primary purpose of the charging document is to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusations brought against him
C. holding that failure to identify the victim where the charge was interfering with domestic violence reporting is an omission of an essential element because the crime must be committed against a family or household member
D. holding if the state does not allege in the charging document the tolling of the statute in an otherwise sufficient information or indictment a defendant may by his actions waive this defense
E. holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.