Given the task definition and input, reply with output. In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

was inconsistent with the large amount of blood at the crime scene. Detective Garretson also testified that an informant told him appellant said she hid her bloody clothes at an abandoned house. The jury had the duty to resolve the conflicting evidence in this case. See Anderson v. State, 701 S.W.2d 868, 872-73 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). "Simply because the jury found appellant's evidence unconvincing is not grounds for finding insufficient evidence to support the verdict." Id. Detective Garretson's expert testimony discredited appellant's statements that a third person was present, that she hit the complainant (but did not stab him) and that she was wearing the unstained clothes and shoes at the crime scene. See Barcenes v. State, 940 S.W.2d 739, 745 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. ref d) (<HOLDING>). If the jury believed appellant attempted to
Holding statements: (A) holding evidence that appellant tried to cover up his actions and expert medical testimony discrediting appellants explanation of inju ries was sufficient to sustain murder conviction (B) holding that the uncorroborated testimony of an informant may be sufficient to sustain a conviction (C) holding proof of possession of stolen goods is sufficient evidence to sustain conviction for theft (D) recognizing that if there is evidence upon which one may reasonably infer an element of the crime the evidence is sufficient to sustain that element and where reasonable minds could differ the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction (E) holding that uncorroborated testimony of one witness is sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction
holding that the uncorroborated testimony of an informant may be sufficient to sustain a conviction