With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 626 P.2d at 301. The predicate felony to Bankert’s conviction of felony murder, thus stands. ISSUE TWO — SIMULTANEOUS POSSESSION OF COCAINE BY BUYER AND SELLER Bankert also claims that jury instruction number ten, stating that “[t]wo or more people can have possession of a substance at the same time,” and the prosecutor’s related closing argument thwarted a jury determination of the possession element. He points out that no drug deal was ever consummated. “It is axiomatic,” he says, “that during a drug transaction, a buyer and seller cannot each possess a controlled substance simultaneously.” At most, Bankert avows he is guilty of attempted possession. See State v. Lopez, 100 N.M. 291, 292, 669 P.2d 1086, 1087 (1983); State v. Curry, 107 N.M. 133, 135, 753 P.2d 1321, 1323 (Ct.App.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 107 N.M. 132, 753 P.2d 1320

A: holding that the attempt to possess the cocaine can be inferred from defendants attempt to pick up the package
B: holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence
C: holding that cocaine trafficking was not a forcible felony so as to preclude the defense of selfdefense when the killing occurred during an attempt to traffic in cocaine
D: holding that to qualify as an attempt to obstruct justice a defendant need not actually threaten the witness he need only attempt to influence him
A.