An adult who sexually abuses a child need not have explicit supervisory responsibility over the victim to be deemed a person in a position of trust, the state Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

“Today we clarify that a defendant’s special access to the victim by virtue of an existing relationship or other conduct or circumstances is evidence of an implied duty or responsibility for the welfare or supervision of the victim during those periods of special access,” wrote Justice Monica M. Márquez.

Richard Andrew Manjarrez hired the teenage daughter of a friend to clean his house, then sexually assaulted her on her third day of work. A jury convicted him of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust. Manjarrez acknowledged that he did in fact abuse the girl, but disputed that he was in a position of trust because he lacked any explicit supervision over her.

A state Supreme Court decision from 2013 defined a position of trust as one that enables access to a victim because of an existing relationship or other circumstances, which then creates an implied responsibility for the child’s welfare.

The 17-year-old victim testified that Manjarrez was a “family friend” and “an adult that [she] trusted.” After he fondled and penetrated her, she said that he instructed her, “Don’t tell your parents. I’ll get in so much trouble.” The girl reported the incident immediately to her parents, and Manjarrez texted the father: “You guys are good friends and I definitely crossed the line.”

Although the age of consent is 17 in Colorado, state law classifies as a class four felony any sexual assault on a child between the ages of 15 and 18 by persons in a position of trust.

Prosecutors argued that Manjarrez used his status as a family friend to gain access to the victim, but the defense countered that he was not a central figure in the family’s life. Manjarrez further testified that the girl initiated the sexual contact.

The jury was instructed that a person in a position of trust meant that the defendant was “charged with any duty or responsibility for the health, education, welfare, or supervision of a child.” Jurors determined that because he was a family friend, he had access to the victim and therefore had a duty to ensure her welfare and supervision. Manjarrez received sex offender probation of 10 years to life and 60 days in jail.

While the Court of Appeals affirmed Majarrez’s conviction, one member of the panel disputed that Manjarrez supervised the victim in her housecleaning duties. 

The 2013 case of People v. Roggow, whose opinion Márquez also authored, determined that a landlord who molested a tenant’s young child while taking her on an errand was sufficient grounds to prove a position of trust, given his friendship with the family. “[A] defendant need not be expressly charged with a particular duty or responsibility over the child at the time of the unlawful act in order to occupy a position of trust. Rather, a defendant may occupy a position of trust with respect to the victim where an existing relationship or other conduct or circumstances establish that the defendant is entrusted with special access to the child victim,” the court concluded.

Márquez, in the Manjarrez opinion, noted that “position of trust” includes parents and caregivers of children, but also those who have access to a child for short periods of time. The law reflects the fact that children are more susceptible to abuse by people they know. The Supreme Court affirmed its decision from 2013, clarifying that a position of trust is contextual.

“Our case law has made clear that this duty or responsibility need not be express but can be implied from the circumstances,” Márquez wrote.

The case is Manjarrez v. People.