With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". felony where the murder and the accompanying felonies were part of the “same criminal episode.” Id. at 71. The court distinguished contrary holdings from other states by noting that the Illinois statute’s “ ‘in the course of’ ” language should be interpreted more broadly than “ ‘during the commission or attempted commission of’ ” language: we think that the Illinois statute recognizes that the crime of murder is not necessarily complete when the victim’s heart stops beating, but rather the crime continues throughout the time that the perpetrator conceals the crime and flees the scene. Id.; see also Ex parte Roberts, 735 So. 2d 1270, 1278 (Ala. 1999) (finding it sufficient that arson and murder were part of continuous chain of events); Way v. State, 496 So. 2d 126, 128 (Fla. 1986) (<HOLDING>). ¶26 However, the California Supreme Court

A: holding that the terms arbitration or arbitrate need not be used as long as binding review by a third party is clearly the intention of the parties
B: holding that a contract need not have mutuality of obligation as long as it is supported by consideration
C: holding that in criminal case a continuous chain of custody need not be proven as long as the evidence as a whole establishes that it is more probable than not that the object introduced is the same as that seized
D: holding prosecution need not prove victims were killed by fire so long as deaths occurred during same criminal episode as arson
D.