With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". testimony there was confirmed that a confidential informant existed, that Ramsey contacted him about the transaction, and that the informant met with appellant at the parking-lot buy. Also, appellant’s purchase of the cocaine, which he claimed was due to the informant’s alleged entrapment, occurred very shortly before appellant’s possession of and arrest for the same cocaine, to which the officers testified; There were no significant intervening circumstances between these two events. For these reasons, the in camera evidence showed that the informant, as an eyewitness to the purchase, could potentially give testimony necessary to a fair determination of appellant’s guilt or innocence, specifically, appellant’s entrapment defense. See Tex.R. Evid. 508(c)(2); Anderson, 817 S.W.2d at 72 (<HOLDING>); cf. Bodin, 807 S.W.2d at 318-19 (holding

A: holding defendant met initial burden under rule 508c2 because showed informant was eyewitness to crime
B: holding that testimony by police officer to effect that informant told him that defendant and his accomplice had come to informants home and discussed purchase of five kilograms of cocaine was not hearsay because statement was made by informant who was authorized by defendant to communicate such information to police officer under rule 801e2c
C: recognizing plaintiff met this burden
D: holding corroborating evidence sufficient that officer drove informant to defendants house saw defendant admit informant and saw informant come out with drugs and defendants voice was identified on audio tape of transaction
A.