With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (Tex.App.-Tyler, July 23, 2008, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication) (evidence sufficient to support tampering conviction when defendant, stopped for traffic offense, admitted that he had a "marijuana roach” and then ate it). 1 . Several states have adopted similar approaches. See, e.g., State v. Fana, 109 Conn. App. 797, 953 A.2d 898, 912 (2008) (stating that modification of judgment to lesser-included offense proper when "the element, which the reviewing court found the evidence insufficient to support, was distinct from the other elements of the charged crime”; when that element was eliminated, "the remaining elements were themselves adequate to support a conviction of a lesser included offense”) (citations omitted); Ritchie v. State, 243 Ind. 614, 189 N.E.2d 575, 577 (1963) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). ALCALA, J., filed a

A: holding that reviewing court in a proper case may modify a judgment of conviction below and affirm it as a conviction of a lesser degree of the offense charged or of a lesser crime included therein where the errors do not affect the conviction of the lesser offense 
B: holding that a lesser crime cannot be a lesser included offense of a greater crime if the lesser crime contains an essential element not included in the greater crime
C: holding it is fundamental error to convict a defendant of crime not charged and which is not a lesser included offense of the charged crime
D: holding that an offense is factually lesser included if the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense
A.