With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". engage in sexual acts, a prosecutor may charge that behavior as both luring and attempted sexual conduct with a minor, as happened in this case. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1001(A)(2), 13-1405(A), 13-3554. Indeed, the same evidence was marshalled to convict Farnsworth of both offenses. In describing the offense of luring, the legislature implicitly acknowledged that the crime might involve someone posing as a child under fifteen. See § 13-3554(A), (B) (“having reason to know that the other person is a minor” sufficient mental state for offense; no defense that actual person lured was not a minor). Yet it also expressly excluded DCAC enhancement when the target was not an actual minor under the age of fifteen. See § 13—3554(C); State v. Regenold, 227 Ariz. 224, ¶ 4, 255 P.3d 1028, 1030 (App. 2011) (<HOLDING>); State v. Villegas, 227 Ariz. 344, ¶ 3, 258

A: holding plain language compelled that reading
B: holding that a plain reading of section 1367 overrules zahn
C: holding that in construing statute courts must first look to its plain language
D: holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning
A.