(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
holding that a violation of ars section 131402 was not subject to a misdemeanor compromise remedy by civil action pursuant to ars section 133981 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 holding that section 12a2 did not apply to a private placement memorandum which was subject to a section 42 exemption holding that absent a policy limitation clause ars  12548 applies to actions on insurance contracts holding that if claim is not an allowed secured claim pursuant to section 506a by its terms section 1325a5b is inapplicable