With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (citing Ex parte Inverness Constr. Co., 775 So.2d 153, 156 (Ala. 2000)).’ “Ex parte McCormick, 932 So.2d 124, 127-28 (Ala. 2005).” State v. Jones, 13 So.3d 915, 919 (Ala. 2008). Discussion •- Watters; in her petition to this Court, argues that, before being required to stand trial, she is entitled to a pretrial evidentiary hearing on whether she is entitled to immunity under § 13A-3-23(d). More specifically, citing this Court’s decision in Ex parte Auburn University, 6 So.3d 478, 483-84 (Ala. 2008), which held that the trial court erred by postponing a determination of the defendants’ entitlement to sovereign immunity and State-agent immunity for consideration “at trial rather than addressing them at the summary-judgment stage of the litigation,” Watters contends tha m. App. 2015) (<HOLDING>). In Harrison, the Court of Criminal Appeals

A: holding that a defendant must prove an affirmative defense at sentencing stage by a preponderance of evidence
B: holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence
C: holding that a defendant asserting immunity based on selfdefense under  13a323d ala code 1976 is entitled to an opportunity to prove that claim by a preponderance of the evidence at a pretrial hearing before the court
D: holding at trial a criminal defendant has the burden to prove his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence
C.