Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on Same Criminal Transaction or Common Scheme A person commits capital murder if: (1) the person commits murder as defined under Section 19.02(b)(1); and (2) the person commits one of the nine aggravating circumstances listed in Sections 19.03(a)(1) through 19.03(a)(9). Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a) (West 2013). In the instant case, Saenz was charged with the aggravating circumstance contained in Section 19.03(a)(7), which requires the person to have murdered more than one person: (A) during the same criminal transaction; or (B) during different criminal transactions but the murders are committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct. Id. at § 19.03(a)(7). Each of the ni 46098, *2-3 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi Jan. 19, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) . Saenz contends that subsections (A) and (B)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where a jury returned with a unanimous finding of no proximate cause but could not reach a unanimous finding on the question of negligence the jury verdict was simple to harmonize and such a finding compelled a judgment for defendant internal quotation marks omitted
B. holding jury verdict unanimous where jury was charged with alternate aggravating circumstance of robbery or burglary against any one of five named victims
C. recognizing that even a nonunanimous recommendation of death by the jury proved that the jury including the jurors who voted against the recommendation of death had unanimously found the existence of a proffered aggravating circumstance even though the circumstance was not included within the definition of the particular capitalmurder offense charged in the indictment because the trial court had specifically instructed the jury that it could not proceed to a vote on whether to impose the death penalty unless it had already unanimously agreed that an aggravating circumstance existed
D. holding jury trial waiver valid although district court did not inform defendant of right to unanimous verdict
E. holding jury verdict unanimous where jury was charged with alternative aggravating circumstance of burglary involving two different victims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.