With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Commonwealth shows that the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury’s verdict. See id. at 739-40. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the jury instructions on malice did not have such an effect. The record provides substantial evidence that the defendant killed Rimer with the requisite state of mind to establish murder in the first degree. The undisputed evidence showed that Rimer was killed as a result of several blows to the head with a blunt object. Testimony also showed that Rimer was asleep at the time of the attack. At trial, the parties disputed the identity of the killer, not whether he possessed the requisite state of mind for a murder conviction. Cf. Neder v. United States, — U.S. —,—, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1837, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (<HOLDING>). The jury also found that Moore killed Rimer

A: holding that overwhelming evidence of element of crime rendered miranda error harmless when improperly admitted statement went to same element
B: recognizing that trial courts failure to instruct jury on element of offense is harmless when existence of element is uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence
C: holding that failure to submit an element of the offense to the jury is subject to harmless error analysis
D: holding that the failure to instruct on a definition or to amplify an element is not a failure to instruct on an essential element
B.