With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". United States v. Jackson, 196 F.3d 383, 386 (2d Cir.1999)). The Fourth Circuit has in turn expressly rejected the Second Circuit’s approach in favor of yet another. In the Fourth Circuit, “if the defendant contested the omitted element, Neder mandates a second inquiry. In that event, we must determine whether the ‘record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to that omitted element.’ ” United States v. Brown, 202 F.3d 691, 701 (4th Cir.2000) (quoting Neder, 527 U.S. at 19, 119 S.Ct. 1827). 3. Criticism in the State Courts Several state supreme courts have held that their state constitutions provide a broader jury trial guarantee than Neder recognized in the federal Constitution. See, e.g., Harrell v. State, 134 So.3d 266, 270-75 (Miss.2014) (<HOLDING>); State v. Kousounadis, 159 N.H. 413, 986 A.2d

A: holding under the mississippi constitution that it is always and in every case reversible error for the courts of mississippi to deny an accused the right to have a jury decide guilt as to each and every element
B: holding that when mississippi adopted a statute modeled after a georgia enactment decisions of the georgia courts did not bind mississippi courts in interpretation of the statute
C: holding that a jury instruction directing the verdict on one element deprived defendant of the right to a jury determination on every element of the charged offense and thus constituted structural error
D: holdingthat an error in instructing the jury that an offense could be committed by a statutory method not charged in the indictment is cured where  the court provides the jury with the indictment and instructs jurors that the burden of proof rests upon the state to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt  citation omitted
A.