With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". attacked Edwards’s testimony based on the deal he struck with the State. While counsel also sought to impeach Prince’s and Barksdale’s testimony, he did not attempt to attack the testimony given by Bridgett or Rainey. Although the defense brought out conflicting and impeachment evidence via cross-examination, this evidence had little or no bearing on the issue of Russell's intent in the Fast Freddy’s offense. Cf. Siqueiros v. State, 685 S.W.2d 68, 71 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (recognizing cross-examination of State’s witnesses can raise issue of identity). The State provided probative evidence on the issue of Russell’s intent in the Fast Freddy’s offense through numerous witnesses, and this evidence of intent was not seriously undermined by the defense. Accord DeLeon, 77 S.W.3d at 313-14 (<HOLDING>). b. Evidence of S & A Offense The State also

A: holding defense crossexamination did not raise issue of intent or identity
B: holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue
C: holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party
D: holding evidence of other crimes inadmissible when identity is not at issue
A.