With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". §§ 15-25-31, -32 (omitting corroboration requirement); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3513 (requiring “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness” but not corroboration); Mont.Code Ann. § 46-16-220 (stating only that court must consider existence of corroboration as a factor in determining admissibility); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 51.385 (omitting corroboration requirement); Ohio Evid. R. 807 (requiring both unavailability and corroboration); Or.Rev.Stat. § 40.460(18a); 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5985.1; Utah R.Crim. P. 15.5 (all omitting corroboration requirement). 7 . Haw. R. Evid. 804(b)(6) (requiring declar-ant be unavailable to testify); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-460(dd) (requiring declarant be disqualified or unavailable to testify). 8 . See, e.g., Styron v. State, 34 So.3d 724, 731 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (<HOLDING>); People v. Moreno, 160 P.3d 242, 246

A: recognizing crawford partially abrogated alacode  152532
B: recognizing change
C: recognizing rule
D: recognizing presumption
A.