With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of “semiautomatic firearm.” 6 . HRS § 134-1 defines "semiautomatic” as “the mode of operation by which a firearm uses the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to extract a fired cartridge and chamber a fresh cartridge with each single pull of a trigger.” 7 . Vanstory does not challenge the accomplice liability language of the State’s indictment. We recognize that, for the purpose of enhanced sentencing, accomplice liability cannot support a finding of possession if the defendant did not actually possess the firearm. See Garringer, 80 Hawai'i at 333-334, 909 P.2d at 1148-49 (evidence showed that only the other robbery defendant possessed the firearm and that Garringer never actually possessed the firearm); State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai'i 462, 488-89, 946 P.2d 32, 58-59 (1997) (<HOLDING>). The instant case, however, is factually

A: holding that in order to convict a defendant of firstdegree murder on a theory of accomplice liability proof of his own premeditation is required
B: holding that under the accomplice liability doctrine a nontriggerman accomplice may be convicted of double murder a capital offense under  13a540a10 alacode 1975 only if he had the particularized intent that both victims be killed
C: holding that general verdicts failed to reveal whether defendant was convicted on accomplice liability theory and that evidence supported accomplice liability theory
D: holding full restitution theory satisfies comcast when plaintiffs theory of liability is that the products are entirely ineffective
C.