Here, Fiser challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the element of abuse of supervisory position. There is no evidence of threats in the record. Fiser essentially argues that only evidence of an express or direct promise will satisfy this element and ignores that the statute provides for indirect promises. We decline to apply Fiser's unrelated civil law definitions of promise to this criminal statute. The obligation of this court is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature.
Review begins with the plain language of the statute.
Lacey Nursing Ctr. From the plain language of the statute and these definitions, it is evident that one of the legislative purposes was to criminalize sexual intercourse between teachers and their students. But the Legislature added the language concerning direct or indirect threats or promises to use authority for the detriment or benefit of the minor. In this case, there is sufficient evidence that A.G. received several benefits from Fiser while she was in a sexual relationship with him. She stated that she had private access almost everyday to Fiser, who was her teacher and coach.