With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that no instruction directly explained to the jury that the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that O’Connell’s criminal conduct was voluntary. The trial court’s instructions informed the jury (1) that the State was required to prove that O’Connell was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) also instructed that he could be convicted only if he voluntarily engaged in the conduct in violation of the statute defining the offenses. These instructions, considered as a whole, in reference to each other and not in isolation, adequately explained to the jury the State’s burden of proving that O’Connell’s actions were voluntary. Simply put, the instructions as a whole did not misstate the law or otherwise mislead the jury. See Hurt v. State, 570 N.E.2d 16, 18 (Ind.1991) (<HOLDING>). Under these facts and circumstances, the

A: holding that the jury instructions taken as a whole sufficiently informed the jury of the states burden of proving that the defendant specifically intended to kill the victim
B: holding defendant must act with specific intent to cause death of another in order to be convicted of attempted murder
C: holding good faith jury instruction is not necessary when the court has given an adequate specific intent instruction
D: holding that there was no error where one instruction did not inform the jury that in order to convict defendant of attempted murder the evidence must show that defendant had a specific intent to commit murder but where subsequent instruction did inform jury of this requirement and concluding that the instructions when read as a whole adequately informed the jury of the requirement of specific intent to kill
D.