With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". before the offense, appellant was present at the Waffle House just seconds before Briscoe entered with a gun, appellant’s placing a to-go order was a ruse because appellant did not pick up the order when he left the restaurant immediately before the offense, and the close relationship between appellant and Bris-coe, a juror could have reasonably found that appellant encouraged, aided, or attempted to aid Briscoe by, for instance, informing him via cell phone of the conditions inside the restaurant, creating a distraction just prior to the robbery, and serving as a lookout while Briscoe pointed the gun at Christian and emptied the cash register. There is evidence in the record indicating that appellant was acting with Briscoe under a common scheme. See Wygal, 555 S.W.2d at 469 (<HOLDING>); see also Miller, 83 S.W.3d at 314. Viewing

A: holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent
B: holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination
C: holding that circumstantial evidence may suffice to show that one is a party to an offense
D: holding that an agreement may be inferred entirely from circumstantial evidence
C.