State v. Flath

¶1 I dissent. That the boy involved consulted the defendant as a physician, and received some treatment or advice is beyond ques *351 tion. Tbe boy detailed wbat took place, in accordance with tbe theory of tbe state. Tbe defendant denied that be treated tbe boy tbe way alleged, for tbe condition that brought about tbe consultation, saying be counselled and advised, merely. These other boys say they consulted the defendant about tbe same time, for the same purpose. According to their testimony they received the same “treatment.” True, all are separate instances and the stories are denied; but, if truly detailed, they show defendant’s method, intent and purpose.