What is the test for determining whether a lesser offense is necessarily included in a greater offence?

To determine whether a lesser offense is necessarily included in a greater offense, we look to either the elements test or the accusatory pleading test. (People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 288.) We are to rely on the plain meaning of a statute when determining legislative intent. (People v. Licas, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 367.)

The elements test is satisfied if all elements of the lesser offense are included in the elements of the greater offense. (People v. Lopez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 288.) "Stated differently, if a crime cannot be committed without also necessarily committing a lesser offense, the latter is a lesser included offense within the former. [Citations.]" (Ibid.) "Under the accusatory pleading test, a lesser offense is included within the greater charged offense '"if the charging allegations of the accusatory pleading include language describing the offense in such a way that if committed as specified the lesser offense is necessarily committed." [Citation.]' [Citations.]" (Id. at pp. 288-289.) We do not

Page 17

consider the trial evidence in determining whether one offense is necessarily included in another. (People v. Cheaves (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 445, 454.)