Court Opinion

ID: 9617653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:59:08.995294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:14.068282
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
On petition for rehearing, plaintiff in error vigorously contends the Court failed to take proper cognizance of the majority rule in this type case in regard to the admission of evidence of other offenses by plaintiff in error. It is conceded that the principle controlling the opinion in this case is a departure from the general rule. In fact, it is an exception to the rule dictated by the necessities of the situation with which we are confronted. The law is presumed to' be a shield of protection to the people, and not a refuge of rascality for him who commits a series of sex offenses, characterized by an abnormal design, plan or scheme of accomplishment, predicated upon a cunning breach of the highest professional trust and confidence, that between a doctor and his patient. In such cases, evidence is admissible of prior or subsequent offenses as part of the design, scheme or plan, bearing a peculiar mark of operation or accomplishment. The petition for rehearing is accordingly denied, and the mandate is ordered issued, forthwith.
NIX, J., dissents.