With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the “Hayward-Jacob test” below. The first two prongs of the Hayward-Jacob test, which in essence require the comparison of the two offenses’ elements, exist because article 37.09, section one’s “proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the ... offense charged” language generally refers to the facts required to prove the elements of the greater offense, as modified by the charging instrument. See Hayward, 158 S.W.3d at 478 (‘When we review a trial court’s decision to deny the request, we consider the charged offense, the statutory elements of the lesser offense, and the evidence actually presented at trial. More specifically, we examine the statutory elements of the charged offense as modified by the indictment.”) (footnotes omitted); Jacob, 892 S.W.2d at 908 (<HOLDING>). That is, if an offense’s elements are proved

A: holding evidence legally insufficient
B: holding evidence legally sufficient
C: holding that when defendants plead not guilty the government is required to prove all elements of charged offenses including intent
D: holding that  facts required  language of article 3709 section one means the evidence legally required to prove the elements of charged offense
D.