With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". murder. “Knowledge of a co-conspirator’s violent propensity or intent to commit aggravated assault is not an element of the offense under either theory of party liability, so the lack of evidence of such knowledge is not dispositive of sufficiency.” Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 14. Accordingly, appellant’s purported lack of knowledge of Levy’s violent nature or intent does not render the evidence insufficient. Moreover, appellant’s claim that he had no reason to believe Levy was violent is contradicted by other evidence, including the coordinated use of force to subdue the complainant and appellant’s statement that he feared Levy. See Gonzalez v. State, No. 13-10-00086-CR, 2012 WL 361733, at *4 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi Feb. 2, 2012, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). As to whether appellant was aware Levy had a

A: holding it error to admit testimony where among other things there was no evidence that defendants appearance had changed since the time of the robbery
B: holding in part that robbery as a class b felony is not necessarily a lesserincluded offense of robbery as a class a felony
C: holding defendants participation in violent robbery and his fear of codefendants among other facts provided sufficient evidence that murder should have been anticipated as result of robbery
D: holding that circumstantial evidence that defendant drove the car and fled the scene after his brother committed robbery was insufficient to sustain defendants conviction absent other evidence of defendants intent to aid in the robbery
C.