Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that she had been shot; in August 2001, a woman reported an assault (without injury); in February 2002, a woman reported that her car was stolen from her in the parking lot; in April 2002, one customer intentionally hit another customer’s vehicle in the drive-through lane (with property damage but not injury); and, in February 2003, police arrested a person who refused to leave the premises. In contrast, no evidence exists that the Whataburger was the scene of any aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, sexual assault, or murder in the three years prior to Dean’s murder. No crime similar to this one had ever occurred: no one had ever robbed the restauran of bus was not foreseeable because plaintiff produced no evidence of similar robberies on same bus line), and Allen, 158 S.W.3d at 67 , with Trammell Crow Cent. Tex., Ltd. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that duty to protect from criminal acts does not arise in the absence of a foreseeable risk of harm
B. holding that sexual assault was not foreseeable because plaintiff produced no evidence of similar criminal acts on or near defendants premises
C. holding that criminal conduct on premises was not foreseeable
D. holding evidence of sexual assault relevant to show defendants motive in kidnapping victim
E. holding that merger did not apply because sexual assault was not a lesser included offense of seconddegree kidnapping involving sexual assault
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.