With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a finding by the jury that defendant has the ability to pay the support order. Section 228 requires that the failure to pay be willful. Therefore, a basic element of the crime is that a defendant have the ability to pay the support order but chooses not to do so. Thus, in prosecuting a charge under § 228, the government is relieved of having to prove that a defendant has the ability to pay so long as there is evidence of an outstanding support obligation. By directing a jury to presume a defendant’s ability to pay, the presumption in § 228(b) directly conflicts with the constitutional presumption of innocence. See Sandstrom, 442 U.S. at 522, 99 S.Ct. 2450 (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 274-75, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952)). See also Hill, 927 F.2d at 650 (<HOLDING>). The presumption contained in § 228(b) has

A: holding that a mandatory presumption in a jury charge which directed a finding on an element of the criminal offense violated the due process clause
B: holding charge error which authorized jury to convict without finding every requisite element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt was egregious based on the entirety of the charge the contested evidence and the arguments of counsel
C: holding that jury charge in juvenile case warranted fundamentalerror review and analyzing whether charge violated due process
D: holding montana statute precluding consideration of voluntary intoxication in determining existence of mental state which is element of criminal offense does not violate due process clause
A.