With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. State, 854 So.2d 1182 (Ala.Crim.App.2002), aff'd, 854 So.2d 1189 (Ala.2003) (finding sufficient evidence of “serious physical injury” based on treating physician’s testimony and victim’s testimony). See also Sizemore v. State, 686 So.2d 544 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (finding sufficient evidence of “serious physical injury” where victim testified regarding extent of her injuries following automobile collision); James v. State, 654 So.2d 59 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (State established that the victim suffered “serious physical injury” by the victim’s testimony). Loving’s testimony regarding her son’s injuries, without medical testimony or Jordan’s testimony, was insufficient to establish that Jordan suffered a “serious physical injury.” See, e.g. Hinkle v. State, 67 So.3d 161 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (<HOLDING>). However, we conclude that the evidence was

A: holding that evidence that the victim was conscious for fifteen minutes after being shot six times supports a finding that the victim suffered great physical pain prior to death
B: holding evidence of serious physical injury insufficient where victim was shot in right cheek but did not have to have surgery and victim denied having any longterm effects from the shooting
C: holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction
D: holding that the victim impact and victim vulnerability aggravators were not overbroad and explaining that though the concepts of victim impact and victim vulnerability may well be relevant in every case evidence of victim vulnerability and victim impact in a particular case is inherently individualized
B.