With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the charged offense.” Id. at 593. The functional equivalence test is “synonymous with the concepts of ‘necessary inclusion’ or ‘subsumption of elements.’ ” Id. at 588 n. 15 (quoting Evans v. State, 299 S.W.3d 138, 143 (Tex.Crim.App.2009)); see Hall, 225 S.W.3d at 535 (stating that “the elements of the lesser offense do not have to be pleaded [in the indictment] if they can be deduced from the facts alleged in the indictment”). In applying the “functional-equivalence” concept to the offenses of burglary and trespass, this Court has previously held that a burglary indictment’s failure to plead that a defendant had notice that entry into a habitation was forbidden did not preclude him from being entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction on criminal trespass. Day, 532 S.W.2d at 306 (<HOLDING>). In Day, this Court explained that, even

A: holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary
B: holding that the offense of criminal trespass is a lesserincluded offense of all three types of burglary and stating generally that the elements of criminal trespass including notice could be established by proof of the same facts necessary to prove the offense of burglary
C: holding that failure to instruct on trespass as a lesserincluded offense three steps removed from armed burglary of a dwelling was harmless because the jury did not exercise its pardon power by finding defendant guilty of any of the lesserincluded offenses one and two steps removed
D: holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary
B.