With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 14-5171 Use Note 3 (providing that the act resulting in the appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm be described in “enough detail to put the act in the context of the evidence”); UJI 14-5172 Use Note 3 (same). Although Defendant did not testify, Crouch provided ample testimony regarding the series of confrontations and the complicity of all three assailants during the threats against Defendant and Crouch. Based on Crouch’s testimony, the jury could reasonably infer that Defendant, who was in front of the Acura and even closer to the action, saw at least what Crouch did and, like Crouch, was afraid for his life and Crouch’s life based on an apparent threat from all three occupants of the Explorer. See State v. Duarte, 1996-NMCA-038, ¶ 7, 121 N.M. 553, 915 P.2d 309 (<HOLDING>). McCormick’s complicity in the events at the

A: holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent
B: recognizing that while it is more difficult to show actual fear without a defendants testimony a jury can infer intent from the circumstantial evidence
C: recognizing that jury may infer from the evidence that defendants money came from drug sales
D: holding that intent and knowledge can be proved by circumstantial evidence
B.