With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an issue, but also none of those cases answer the issue posed to this court. There being no express legislative language indicating the notion of "suspension” of rights, no Washington authority, and no persuasive foreign authority, we reject Olesen’s "suspended rights” theory. We affirm. Seinfeld, C.J., and Wiggins, J., concur. 1 Laws of 1977, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 394, § 23. At the time of Dale Jones’s death, RCW 4 troactivity in Review: The Federal and Washington Approaches, 16 Gonz. L. Rev. 855, 881-82 (1981), and the cases collected therein. 8 19 Wn. App. 473, 576 P.2d 69, review denied, 90 Wn.2d 1022 (1978), 9 Hunter, 19 Wn. App. at 475. 10 Black’s Law Dictionary 896 (Abridged 6th ed. 1991). 11 Orland, supra, at 880 n.135. 12 Haddenham v. State, 87 Wn.2d 145, 148, 550 P.2d 9 (1976) (<HOLDING>); see also Marine Power & Equip. Co. v. Human

A: holding that the crime victims compensation act which compensated innocent victims of criminal acts was an attempt to remedy that situation and therefore applied retroactively
B: holding that participation in a state compensation program for victims of crime was not fundamental
C: holding that the victims negligence is not a defense to criminal conduct
D: holding that a jury could reasonably infer defendant and his brother engaged in victims murder with deliberation where victims hands and feet were bound expert testimony was that victims injuries were inflicted when he was alive defendants gloves were discarded in victims trailer and defendant and his brother burned the trailer in an attempt to conceal the evidence
A.