With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Johnson, supra. The statement was taken while Wallace was under the influence of both alcohol and cocaine. Moreover, Wallace had consumed so much of these substances that he was unconscious and lying in his own vomit, when initially observed by Chief Em-erick. To admit this statement as substantive evidence of Grimes’ possession of the cocaine found in his vehicle flies in the face of the reliability requirement announced in Lively, supra, and reaffirmed in Johnson, supra, and will not be tolerated. Accordingly, as Wallace’s previous statement was instrumental in connecting Grimes to both the cocaine and drug paraphernalia found in the pickup truck, we are obliged to vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial on the possession counts. See, e.g., Johnson, supra (<HOLDING>). Although we vacate and remand this case for a

A: holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen
B: holding that statement that declarant saw defendant outside was admissible under rule 8081 because the statement explained an event or condition
C: holding that a statement made by a sixyearold to a fouryearold carries no indicia of reliability when the declarant denies ever making the statement the listener has no recollection of when or under what circumstances the statement was made and the listener is related to the defendaniappellant
D: holding that a hearsay statement can itself be considered in first determining if a conspiracy existed when the statement was made
C.