With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". A.2d 370 (1984). In Jarbath, supra, the “serious injustice” exception was applied to a twenty year old woman defendant convicted of killing her nineteen day old son. The defendant had been diagnosed psychotic, was mentally retarded, had attempted suicide and was abused in prison. Finding these circumstances extraordinary, the Supreme Court affirmed a non-custodial sentence because the defendant lacked the “understanding or emotional strength of relatively normal persons,” and “could not endure life in prison without unusual suffering, that is hardship and privation greatly exceeding that which would be accepted and endured by ordinary inmates as the inevitable consequences of punishment.” Id. at 409, 555 A.2d 559. See also State v. E.R., 273 N.J.Super. 262, 641 A.2d 1072 (App.Div.1994) (<HOLDING>). Application of the exception has been

A: holding that  2d11a2 applied because defendant pled guilty to a crime that contemplated death or serious bodily injury from the use of heroin
B: recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception
C: holding that the serious injustice exception applied because the defendant was dying from the aids virus
D: holding that the exception is applied only in exceptional situations
C.