With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt were adequate clarifications of the challenged instructions. Id. Similar considerations exist in the present case. Instructions 6 and 8 clarify any issues involving the word “innocence” in Instructions 2, 4, and 5. Instruction 6 explains that the State has the burden to show the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Instruction 8 again provides that the burden is on the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and also defines reasonable doubt for the jury. Because Instructions 2, 4, and 5 were clarified by Instructions 6 and 8 and therefore were not prejudicial to the defendant, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the instructions. See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234, 238 (Iowa 1998) (<HOLDING>). We have considered all issues presented and

A: holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim
B: holding that an attorney is not ineffective for failing to make a meritless objection
C: holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel
D: holding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless issue
D.