With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". counsel claims regarding voir dire: 1) that counsel should have moved to strike prospective juror Schleper for cause; and 2) that counsel should have moved to strike the entire group of prospective jurors who heard juror Rohan’s comment supporting the death penalty. The claim pertaining to Mr. Schleper is that he could not fully consider life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The motion court found that Ferguson’s claim was refuted by the’ record. This Court agrees. Although Mr. Schlep-er first indicated that he “kind of ... leaned toward” the death penalty, he then stated unequivocally that he would consider mitigating circumstances, would consider both possible penalties, and would follow the judge’s instructions. See State v. Ramsey, 864 S.W.2d 320, 336 (Mo. banc 1993) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1078, 114 S.Ct. 1664,

A: holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment
B: holding that the trial court did not err in overruling a challenge for cause of a venireperson who stated that he leaned toward the death penalty
C: holding that leaning towards the death penalty is not the same as an automatic vote for the death penalty
D: holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion noting that the court had previously and repeatedly rejected the claim that asking whether a prospective juror could sign a death verdict if selected as foreperson improperly seeks a commitment from the venireperson and that ability to assess the death penalty as jury foreperson is a proper basis for followup questioning directed to an equivocating venireperson
B.