With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 23 . Wilson v. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Ky., 884 S.W.2d 641, 646 (1994). 24 . Owens v. Clemons, Ky., 408 S.W.2d 642, 645 (1966). 25 . Commonwealth, ex rel. Cowan v. Wilkinson, Ky., 828 S.W.2d 610, 614 (1992). 26 . 501 U.S. 957, 998, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 2703, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring). 27 . See Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447, 464, 104 S.Ct. 3154, 3164, 82 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984)(recognizing that there was no federal constitutional right to jury sentencing even for capital offenses); and Perry v. Commonwealth, Ky., 407 S.W.2d 714, 715 (1966)(hold-ing that there was no right to jury sentencing under Kentucky Constitution § 7). 28 . See also Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 9.84(1). 29 . See generally Boone v. Commonwealth, Ky., 780 S.W.2d 615 (1989)(<HOLDING>). 30 . Kohler v. Benckart, Ky., 252 S.W.2d 854,

A: holding that defendant has due process right to introduce evidence on minimum parole eligibility in sentencing phase
B: holding that where the capital defendants future dangerousness is at issue and state law prohibits the defendants release on parole due process requires that the sentencing jury be informed that the defendant is parole ineligible
C: recognizing the defense has a right to comment on the presentence report and may introduce evidence
D: holding that a defendant has the right both to present evidence to prove that the defendant does not qualify for sentencing under the act and to challenge the states evidence regarding the defendants eligibility for sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender
A.