With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". police observed that the radiator and motor were still hot. Id. The trial court also admitted evidence that Rawls was intoxicated at the time. Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Rawls’ conviction, even though “[t]he only direct evidence that [Rawls] had driven a motor vehicle upon a public street was his statement or confession,” stating, The fact that appellant failed to challenge the statement of the driver of the wrecker or in any other manner failed to challenge the implication that it was his automobile which the officer trailed and which was found at the site is deemed sufficient circumstance to corroborate his extrajudicial confession that he was the driver of the automobile. Id. (relying on Fancher v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. 269, 319 S.W.2d 707, 708 (Tex.Crim.App.1958) (<HOLDING>)). Likewise, here, appellant described running

A: holding that the defendant was guilty of leaving the scene because the injured party and a police officer were present at the scene within a reasonable time after the accident
B: holding that ownership of vehicle and presence at scene of crash sufficiently corroborated appellants statement
C: holding that mother who did not learn of her sons death in airplane crash until seven hours after the crash could not recover
D: holding informants testimony corroborated by evidence consisting of defendants presence at scene coupled with cash found in his pocket carrying serial numbers matching those provided to informant for controlled buy and videotape of transaction included conversation of defendant regarding prior drug sale
B.