she could remember. A.G. testified that she did not tell anyone because she knew it happened to others and they did not tell. {38} This evidence supports the inference that Defendant used his position of authority to gain the trust of the victims, to obtain the opportunity to touch the victims, and to cause them to submit to his unlawful touching. Defendant argues that there was no coercion because “there is no indication the sexual contact was forced.” However, in the context of CSCM, the law does not define coercion in the terms used by Defendant. The testimony permitted the jury to reasonably infer a connection between Defendant’s position of authority and his sexual contact with the victims, which is sufficient to infer the existence of coercion. See id. at 807, 833 P.2d at 1173 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports
holding that use of a position of authority to coerce sexual contact may be proven inferentially holding that circumstances evidencing a defendants authority over a minor victim inferentially support a finding of coercion holding that taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances the 20yearold stepdaughter victim continued to be subject to howells parental authority and thus the evidence was minimally sufficient to support jurys finding of forcible compulsion holding that an undercover law enforcement officer qualified as a minor under ussg  2g22b4 based on the interchangeable use of minor and victim in the commentary to that guideline as well as the definition of victim in the commentary holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract