With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". statements “lacked the indicia of reliability based on the self-interest inherent in obtaining appropriate medical treatment.” State v. Stafford, 317 N.C. 568, 574, 346 S.E.2d 463, 467 (1986). Consequently, we hold that defendant did not satisfy the first prong of the test set out in Hinnant. As for the second prong of the Hinnant test, defendant has made no argument as to how his statement that he only confessed because an officer told him he would receive the death penalty if he did not confess was “reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment.” Hinnant, 351 N.C. at 289, 523 S.E.2d at 671. Defendant does not contend that his statement had anything to do with a mental illness he may have had at the time. See State v. Gattis, 166 N.C. App. 1, 8-9, 601 S.E.2d 205, 210 (2004) (<HOLDING>). It is relevant to acknowledge that defendant

A: holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors
B: holding that nurses statement made during the course of treating the plaintiff was admissible under rule 801d2d when offered against the government in ftca case
C: holding statements inadmissible under colo r evid 8034  which was identical to the federal rule  because there was no evidence that the fiveyearold child was capable of recognizing at the time the challenged statements were made the need to provide accurate information for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment within the meaning of fedrevid 8034
D: holding that exculpatory statement made by defendant to a nurse and recorded in the nurses notes was not admissible under rule 8034 because it was not reasonably pertinent to diagnosis and treatment
D.