With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". placed most of the blame on himself. While the statement proved appellant was at the scene of the murder, Profitte did not specify how, or if, appellant participated in the offense. Therefore, Profitte did not give his statement merely to shift blame, curry favor, or divert attention to another. All the circumstances surrounding the taking of Profitte’s statement, along with the corroborated facts in the statement, give credence to its reliability. The statement was, therefore, admissible under the rule of Cofield, and we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Sergeant Belk to testify in this regard. See Coffin v. State, 885 S.W.2d 140, 149 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); compare Zarychta v. State, 961 S.W.2d 455, 457, 460 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] pet. ref d) (<HOLDING>). We overrule the first point of error. In the

A: holding to the contrary when statement of the codefendant contradicted defendants confession about crucial fact of whether defendant ordered codefendant to shoot victim or pleaded with codefendant not to shoot victim
B: holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon
C: holding that the witnesss prior statement that the victim was lying flat on his back when he was shot impermissibly contradicted the witnesss trial testimony that the victim was on top of another individual at that time
D: holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction
A.