With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ... [t]he statement is offered against a party and is ... (E) a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” With regard to Rule 801(d)(2), this Court has explained: According to State v. Fairchild, 171 W.Va. 137, 144, 298 S.E.2d 110, 117 (1982), “evidence of acts or declarations of co-conspirators or co-actors is admissible only if a proper foundation, or prima facie ease, is established.... The required foundation consists of: (1) proof of a conspiracy existing between the declarant and the defendant; and (2) proof that the act or declaration was made during and in pursuance of the conspiracy or joint enterprise. (Citation omitted.)” See Bourjaily v. U.S., 483 U.S. 171, 176-81, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2779-82, 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 153-56 (1987) (<HOLDING>); State v. Nixon, 178 W.Va. 338, [342], 359

A: holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence
B: recognizing that the preponderance of the evidence is the quantum of proof in civil cases
C: holding the fedrevid 801d2e requires proof of the conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence and allows consideration of the offered declaration as part of the proof of the conspiracy
D: holding that in addition to the elements of the substantive violation a rico conspiracy requires proof of the additional element of an agreement
C.