a reasonable doubt, while viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and indulging all inferences in favor of upholding that verdict. State v. Segura, 2002-NMCA-044, ¶ 10, 132 N.M. 114, 45 P.3d 54. We do not substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder concerning the credibility of witnesses or the weight to be given their testimony. State v. Riggs, 114 N.M. 358, 362-63, 838 P.2d 975, 979-80 (1992). {9} A person in a “position of authority” is defined under New Mexico law as “that position occupied by a parent, relative, household member, teacher, employer or other person who, by reason of that position, is able to exercise undue influence over a child.” NMSA 1978, § 30-9-10(F); see also State v. Gardner, 2003-NMCA-107, ¶ 38, 134 N.M. 294, 76 P.3d 47 (<HOLDING>); Segura, 2002-NMCA-044, ¶¶ 16-17, 132 N.M.
holding that assistant principal used 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 holding that abuse of trust enhancement applied where defendant had discretion to engage in commodities transactions on victims behalf without victims supervision holding that employer controlled the victims will at least in part by using his position as the victims employer holding that the circuit court properly allowed the victims schoolteacher to testify as to the victims general reputation for truthfulness holding that the offense of sexual battery requires the state prove the victims lack of consent regardless of the victims age and charge the jury on the same