With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See, e.g., Davis, 121 Wn.2d at 4; State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48, 584 P.2d 382 (1978). These requirements have been denominated as the " 'legal’ ” and "’factual’ ” prongs of the lesser included offense test. State v. Walden, 67 Wn. App. 891, 893, 841 P.2d 81 (1992). Under the legal prong, an instruction on the lesser offense is proper "only if the charged crime 'could not be committed’ without also committing the lesser offense.” Walden, 67 Wn. App. at 893 (quoting State v. Curran, 116 Wn.2d 174, 183, 804 P.2d 558 (1991)). Under this test, a lesser included instruction is inappropriate when alternative means exist by which the charged crime can be committed, one of which would not result in the commission of the alleged lesser included offense. See Davis, 121 Wn.2d at 5-6 (<HOLDING>); see also Curran, 116 Wn.2d at 183 (holding

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 in the conviction and sentencing for criminal offenses committed in the course of one criminal episode it is the intent of the legislature that there be a separate conviction and sentence for each criminal offense unless one of the offenses is a degree of the other a necessarily included lesser offense subsumed in the other or both offenses are identical
C: 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
D: holding that there are no lesser included offenses of second degree felony murder because of the multiple means of committing the offense
D.