With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 652, (Tex.App.Waco 1993, writ denied); see also Ex parte Threet, 160 Tex. 482, 333 S.W.2d 361, 364 (1960) (evidence that couple was introduced as husband and wife to a few friends was no evidence that they held themselves out as married). Whether the evidence is sufficient to establish that a couple held themselves out as husband and wife turns on whether the couple had a reputation in the community for being married. Eris, 39 S.W.3d at 715; see also Danna v. Danna, No. 05-05-00472-CV, 2006 WL 785621, at ⅜1 (Tex.App.-Dallas Mar. 29, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (a “couple’s reputation in the community as being married is a significant factor in determining the holding[-]out element”), quoted in Smith v. Deneve, 285 S.W.3d 904, 910 (Tex.App.Dallas 2009, no pet.); Giessel, 734 S.W.2d at 31 (<HOLDING>). Proving a reputation for being married

A: holding victims statements to coworkers admissible to rebut defendants claim that they had a good marriage
B: holding that police did not enjoy qualified immunity for a period where they acknowledged that plaintiff had to be released but nevertheless kept him handcuffed
C: holding that couple held themselves out as married when they had reputation in community for being married even though they had kept marriage secret from a few family members
D: holding that the defendants statement in an application for citizenship that he had only been married once was false even if the second marriage had been a nullity because it was bigamous
C.