With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". indicate that this is a decision that lies solely with the trial court. After reviewing the plain lan guage of section 39-13-208, along with the provisions of Rules 3 and 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we conclude that interlocutory review is appropriate. In 1990, the Tennessee General Assembly, following the lead of the Georgia and Maryland state legislatures, made the policy decision to prohibit the execution of any defendant “with mental retardation at the time of committing first degree murder.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-203(b) (2003). This statutory prohibition was followed by this Court’s decision in Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn.2001), in which we held that execution of mentally retarded persons was constitutionally prohibited as well. Id. at 809 (<HOLDING>). Noting that a national consensus prohibiting

A: holding that under the eighth amendment to the united states constitution the government may not execute a mentally retarded person
B: holding execution of the mentally retarded constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment
C: holding that the eighth amendment to the united states constitution prohibits the execution of mentally retarded individuals
D: holding execution of mentally retarded individuals fails to achieve legitimate penalogical objectives for punishment as required by the eighth amendment to the united states constitution and article i  16 of the tennessee constitution
D.