“manner and means” by which the State alleged appellant had committed an offense. “Subject to rare exceptions, an indictment tracking the language of the statute will satisfy constitutional and statutory requirements; the State need not allege facts that are merely evidentiary in nature.” Flores v. State, 33 S.W.3d 907, 918 (Tex.App.-Hous ton [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. refd) (citing State v. Mays, 967 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex. Crim.App.1998)). An exception to this rule arises when the statute defines the manner or means through which one can commit an offense using different methods. Id. Where the statute defines manner and means, the indictment must provide notice of the statutory manner or means on which the State will seek to convict the defendant. Id. (citing Edmond, 933 S.W.2d at 128) (<HOLDING>). Section 38.122 does not include the manner
holding that an indictment charging one offense during the commission of another crime need not allege the elements of the latter offense holding that when a term is defined in the statute it need not be further alleged in the indictment holding when a statute defines manner or means of committing an offense indictment need not allege matters beyond the language of the statute holding although indictment may allege manner and means of committing offense in the conjunctive jury may be charged in the disjunctive and a conviction on any method alleged will be upheld if the evidence supports it holding that a found in indictment need not allege all of the elements of entry