violations is greatly reduced. Indeed, in such a circumstance, the defendant will be charged not with attempt, but with actually enticing a minor to commit the specific sex act that was completed and that will be listed in the indictment. With attempted persuasion, however, the charge is based on sexual conduct not yet initiated or completed. A charge of attempted persuasion—particularly when the defendant does not convey his desired sex act in language that explicitly tracks the elements of a particular offense—carries a greater potential to implicate multiple statutes and creates a greater need for the prosecution to cover all its statutory bases by listing each of these potential statutes in the indictment. 14 . Cf. Parker v. State, 581 So.2d 1211, 1213 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990) (<HOLDING>); King v. State, 574 So.2d 921, 928-29 (Ala.
holding that firstdegree sexual abuse is a lesserincluded offense of firstdegree rape holding that firstdegree sexual abuse is a lesserincluded offense of firstdegree sodomy holding that that the trial court erred when it determined that firstdegree sexual offense was an aggravated offense holding that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on seconddegree sexual abuse which is a lesserincluded offense of firstdegree rape holding that the trial court in a sexual assault case erred by refusing to allow evidence of prior testimony by the complainant in an unrelated rape prosecution