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
holding that when defendants plead not guilty the government is required to prove all elements of charged offenses including intent holding evidence legally insufficient holding evidence legally sufficient holding that  facts required  language of article 3709 section one means the evidence legally required to prove the elements of charged offense holding due process clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements included in the definition of the charged offense and new york law that requires the defendant in a second degree murder prosecution to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance in order to reduce the crime to manslaughter when no element of the charged offense is presumed does not violate the due process clause