With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Garcia, 114 N.M. 269, 274, 837 P.2d 862, 867 (1992) (citation omitted). In conducting this review, we resolve all conflicts and indulge all permissible inferences to uphold the conviction, and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829. Applying this standard to the evidence supporting the coercion element of Defendant’s CSCM convictions, we find no error. {33} The testimony of the victims themselves provided the basis for all four convictions. The record reflects that all four victims provided testimony sufficient for a reasonable mind to conclude that the unlawful contact was at least in part a result of Defendant’s position of authority. See State v. Trevino, 113 N.M. 804, 807, 833 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Ct.App.1991) (<HOLDING>). {34} Victim D.G. testified that, at her

A: holding that duress or coercion would invalidate a contract if the coercion comes from the opposing party not the claimants attorney
B: holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection
C: holding that sufficient connection between employment and sexual contact permitted jury to infer coercion by employer
D: holding that private sexual contact between consenting adults is a liberty right protected by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment
C.