Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction. See NMSA 1978, § 30-2-l(A)(l); SCRA 1986, 14-201. Defendant’s conviction is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. MONTGOMERY and FROST, JJ., concur. 1 . Defendant raised numerous other issues in his docketing statement. These issues, however, are deemed to be waived as defendant did not brief or argue them on appeal. See State v. Clark, 108 N.M. 288, 311, 772 P.2d 322, 345, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 923, 110 S.Ct. 291, 107 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989). 2 . The record does not contain evidence that the State intentionally deprived defendant of the shoes. However, the State "concede[d] that it may have breached its duty to the defendant [to preserve that evidence]." See State v. Stephens, 93 N.M. 368, 369, 600 P.2d 820, 821 (1979)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to consider whether to apply a spoliation sanction the evidence must be relevant to an issue in the case and the party who destroyed the evidence must be under a duty to preserve the evidence
B. recognizing that a 11 evidence must be relevant to be admissible
C. recognizing the practical difficulties of contemporaneous objections to a trial judges conduct
D. recognizing states duty to preserve relevant evidence where practical
E. holding that the states duty to preserve evidence attaches at the time the state has gathered and taken possession of the evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.