With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the hypothesis that he also formed the intent to steal Goods’s property. When proving specific intent from attendant circumstances, “the chain of necessary circumstances must be unbroken and the evidence as a whole must satisfy the guarded judgment that both the corpus delicti and the criminal agency of the accused have been proved to the exclusion of any other rational hypothesis and to a moral certainty.” Person v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 36, 39, 389 S.E.2d 907, 909 (1990) (quoting O’Brien v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 261, 263, 356 S.E.2d 449, 450 (1987)). Here, as in Person, the theft and assault were part of the unbroken sequence of events. Id. at 40, 389 S.E.2d at 910; see also Briley v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 532, 543, 273 S.E.2d 48, 55 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1031 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial

A: holding that robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of habitualoffender sentencing
B: holding that sexual assault of a child qualified as crime of violence under 18 usc  16
C: holding that where the violence against the victim and the trespass to her property combine in a continuing unbroken sequence of events both the crime of assault and the crime of robbery are ongoing during the assault
D: holding that assault resulting in bodily injury under  111b is a crime of violence
C.