With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133, 42 P.3d 564, 578 (2002)(en banc)(deferring to trial court’s implicit finding of no Batson violation); State v. Shanks, 809 S.W.2d 413, 415-16 (Mo.Ct.App.1991)(noting that, even though the trial court made no express findings, the record was sufficient to evaluate the court’s implicit finding regarding the neutrality of the proffered explanation); State v. Smith, 791 S.W.2d 744, 750 (Mo.Ct.App.1990)(stating that although the trial judge failed to make explicit findings in support of denial of defendant’s Batson’s claim, record is sufficient to support judge's implicit finding that defendant failed to make a prima facie case and would be sufficient for a finding of nonpretextuality); People v. Turner, 294 A.D.2d 192, 743 N.Y.S.2d 78, 79 (N.Y.App.Div.2002)(<HOLDING>); Broden v. State, 923 S.W.2d 183, 186

A: holding that the record supports the trial judges implicit finding of nonpretextuality
B: holding that a likelihood that the suspect will escape supports a finding of exigency
C: holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record
D: holding that the absence of legitimate income supports the finding of probable cause in a forfeiture action
A.