Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to which such conduct reasonably points.” Boling v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1055, 1057 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Henson asserts that there is no evidence that he touched.either Daniel or Patterson. And he maintains that the State did not prove the mens rea elements of each offense. In particular, he contends that .there is. no evidence that he had the specific intent to use the car as a deadly weapon. We address each contention in turn. . . Touching As our Supreme Court has stated, “[w]hile battery requires [a] defen dant to have intended to touch another person, [he] need not personally touch another person since battery may be committed by the unlawful touching by [the] defendant or by any other substance put in motion by [the] defendant.” Matthews v. State, 476 N.E.2d 847, 850 (Ind. 1985)  (emphasis added). Here, the State presented
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the rule 404b evidence admitted to prove intent was clearly relevant because intent was at issue in the trial
B. holding that the encounter between an officer and the defendant did not rise to the level of a terry stop until the defendant gave the officer his license and the officer informed the defendant that he was going to be given a patdown
C. holding intent to touch satisfied where defendant fired bullets at officer
D. holding that the initial stop by officer was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant was impersonating a police officer although another officer arrested defendant for privacy act violation
E. holding that where congressional intent is clear a court must give effect to such intent
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.