to the breasts, buttocks, or vulva of the victim; (2) Defendant was a person who, by reason of his relationship to the victim, was able to exercise undue influence over the victim and used this authority to coerce the victim to submit to the sexual contact; (3) the victim was at least 13 years old but less than 18 years old; (4) Defendant’s act was unlawful; and (5) the act happened in New Mexico. UJI 14-926 NMRA. On appeal, Defendant challenges only the second element, contending that there was insufficient evidence presented to prove that he was in a position of authority over Jessica and Stephanie and that by reason of this position, he was able to exercise undue influence over the girls. This Court must determine whether a rational jury could have found this element bey 45 P.3d 54 (<HOLDING>); State v. Corbin, 111 N.M. 707, 710, 809 P.2d
holding that a final jury instruction containing the cause number 241 instead of 214 was not reversible error because it would not have been reasonable for the jury to conclude that defendant had been charged with an additional conviction holding that taking indecent liberties with a child under 16 for sexual gratification constitutes sexual abuse of a minor even without physical contact holding that reasonable attorneys fees for the benefit of a minor in defending the minor against a criminal charge were necessaries holding that but for faulty jury instruction uncles conviction for criminal sexual contact with a minor by person in position of authority would have been upheld holding that use of interstate commerce channel to entice minor into sexual contact is a crime of violence