With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". she consented in the belief that Defendant was a professional whose explanations were in her best interest. She also believed that a buttock massage was a normal component of a full-body massage. A rational jury could reasonably infer that it was not until Defendant touched Jessica’s vagina without warning that she realized that Defendant was perhaps not behaving in a professional manner, but that until that point Jessica believed Defendant to be a professional health care provider who was in a position of authority over her and used this position to exercise undue influence over her, as evidenced by his ability to convince her that breast and buttock massages are normal components of a full-body massage. See State v. Trevino, 113 N.M. 804, 807, 833 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Ct.App. 1991) (<HOLDING>), aff'd in part by State v. Orosco, 113 N.M.

A: holding that use of a position of authority to coerce sexual contact may be proven inferentially
B: holding that best interest of child need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence
C: holding that medical expenses must be proven to be both reasonable and necessary
D: holding that reliance must be proven by some evidence
A.