contention that he did not recognize the cause of his psychological harm would require the court to conclude that Martin also did not realize the reason for his interview and the rationale behind his plea for leniency at his sentencing hearing. In addition, the evaluation report detailed the causal link between the psychological harm and the sexual abuse, and Martin read at least a portion of the report. Based on the purpose of the evaluation report, its substance, and Martin’s review of it, Martin possessed at least a modicum of knowledge of the causal link between the abuse and the psychological injury. Moreover, the nature of the abuse and the injuries inflicted did not inhibit Martin from recognizing the cause of the psychological harm. See Doe v. Creighton, 439 Mass. at 284 (<HOLDING>). As discussed above, this is not a case
holding that when training takes place in an educational setting the analysis should focus on which party receives the primary benefit of the work performed by the students holding that in determining whether a crime is a continuing offense the court must focus on the nature of the substantive offense and not on the specific characteristics of the conduct in the case at issue holding that the courts analysis should focus on the nature of the abuse injuries inflicted and the effect of both recognizing the more narrow focus of a good faith analysis holding hospital employees testimony regarding victims previous injuries was inadmissible under the common scheme or plan exception because there was no clear and convincing evidence defendant inflicted the injuries