intended to require the People to prove use of force, intimidation, or abuse of a position of authority to sustain a conviction pursuant to section 1700a. See Knight, 989 F.2d at 626; People v. Skinner, 704 P.2d 752, 758 (Cal. 1985). C. The Errors in this Case Justify Overturning Gilbert’s Conviction Because L.M. was seventeen years-old at the time of the incident, the People, consistent with the intent of the Legislature, were required to prove that Gilbert used force, intimidation, or his position of authority to coerce L.M. to have intercourse with him in order to sustain a conviction for aggravated rape in the second degree. However, the People’s information did not allege such an element. See Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S. Ct. 2887, 41 L. Ed. 2d 590 (1974) (<HOLDING>) Furthermore, the trial court’s jury
holding that the information must set forth each element of the crime that it charges as well as fairly inform a defendant of the charge against which he must defend recognizing that an indictment must contain the elements of the offense charged fairly inform a defendant of the charge and enable the defendant to plead double jeopardy as a defense in a future prosecution for the same offense holding that each element required under the act must be included in the written notice and each element must be sufficiently clear and accurate  holding that a fraudulent transfer complaint need only set forth the facts with sufficient particularity to apprise the defendant fairly of the charges made against him holding that a district judge must inform the defendant of each and every right set out in rule 11