In re J.E.G., 2020 UT App 94

Mid‑August 2015: Victim (age 8) and family moved into J.E.G.’s home; J.E.G. (11–12) accompanied Victim home from school when no adults were present. Victim testified J.E.G. touched her genitals on multiple occasions.
Victim disclosed the abuse to her mother months later; the matter was reported to police nearly two years after the last incident and a CJC interview was conducted.
2018 petition charged two counts of sexual abuse of a child under 14, alleging incidents in August 2015 and December 2015. At trial Victim could not reliably identify exact months.
After the evidence and closing, the State moved to amend both counts to allege the conduct occurred “on or about August 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.” The juvenile court allowed the amendment but offered a continuance for defense to present additional evidence; J.E.G. declined and the court adjudicated him delinquent.
J.E.G. appealed, arguing the amendment violated rule 4/due process (prejudice to alibi defense), violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that the evidence was insufficient. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (J.E.G.)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether allowing the State to amend the petition after close of evidence/closing prejudiced due process and violated rule 4	Amendment after trial thwarted his alibi defense and prejudiced his rights; he needed a new trial	Amendment merely conformed charges to the evidence; court offered continuance to cure prejudice	Court: Amendment permissible; continuance offered cured prejudice; J.E.G. waived relief by refusing it
Whether amendment/reopening violated Double Jeopardy	Amendment and reopening forced him to defend again and violated protection from being twice put in jeopardy	No double jeopardy because no final verdict had been reached before amendment	Court: No double jeopardy—the proceeding was still pending and no acquittal/conviction occurred
Whether evidence was sufficient after amendment	Evidence was inconsistent as original dates (Aug/Dec) were impossible given other testimony	Victim’s testimony and reasonable inferences supported timeframe between Aug–Dec (not limited to Aug/Dec); children's date-memory problems are foreseeable	Court: Sufficient evidence to find delinquency beyond a reasonable doubt; factfinder reasonably credited Victim

State v. Wilson, 771 P.2d 1077 (continuance waiver doctrine; failure to accept continuance negates claim of surprise)
State v. Fulton, 742 P.2d 1208 (court must grant continuance when variance is prejudicial; children's date-memory issues)
State v. Taylor, 116 P.3d 360 (constitutional notice satisfied if defendant is sufficiently apprised of state’s evidence)
State v. Wilcox, 808 P.2d 1028 (adequate notice requirement protects ability to prepare defense)
State v. Robbins, 709 P.2d 771 (children often cannot specify exact dates of past abuse)
In re P.G., 343 P.3d 297 (standard of review for sufficiency in juvenile adjudications)
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (double jeopardy bars retrial only after acquittal or conviction; not where no verdict reached)
State v. Hamblin, 239 P.3d 300 (appellate review for abuse of discretion in permitting prosecutorial amendments)