With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (quoting R. Gerber, Criminal Law in Arizona 197 (1978)). A.R.S. section 13-1402 was also discussed in Rolph v. City Court of City of Mesa, 127 Ariz. 155, 618 P.2d 1081 (1980), another decision involving charges brought pursuant to A.R.S. section 13-1403. In Rolph, the Arizona Supreme Court contrasted the two statutes and held that A.R.S. section 13-1402 (indecent exposure) was not a lesser included offense of A.R.S. section 13-1403 (public sexual indecency) as the latter statute did not require public nudity as an element. Id. at 159, 618 P.2d at 1085. As a result, it was unnecessary for the court to determine what other elements were required for a conviction under A.R.S. section 13-1402. See also State ex rel. Baumert v. Superior Court, 130 Ariz. 256, 257, 635 P.2d 849, 850 (1981) (<HOLDING>). In the absence of prior controlling court

A: holding that section 12a2 did not apply to a private placement memorandum which was subject to a section 42 exemption
B: holding that a violation of ars section 131402 was not subject to a misdemeanor compromise remedy by civil action pursuant to ars section 133981
C: holding that absent a policy limitation clause ars  12548 applies to actions on insurance contracts
D: holding that claim brought under section 1983 of the civil rights act constituted a personal injury tort claim because section 1983 confers a general remedy for injuries to personal rights
B.