State v. Enrique F., 146 Conn. App. 820

Victim (S) testified that between summer 2009 and summer 2010 the defendant, Enrique F., repeatedly touched her breasts, buttocks, and vagina and entered her room unannounced; she reported the abuse in August 2010 and the defendant was arrested.
The state charged two counts of risk of injury to a child (General Statutes § 53-21(a)(1) and (2)) originally alleging the conduct occurred "in or around January–June 2010." Trial began in October 2011.
Three days into trial the state moved to amend the long form information to expand the time frame to "in or around August 2009–August 2010" to conform to S’s testimony; the court permitted the amendment and invited the defense to request time to investigate (no continuance was sought).
The defendant was acquitted of second-degree sexual assault but convicted on both counts of risk of injury to a child; he admitted certain relevant acts (slapping buttocks, entering room while undressed, disciplining with a belt).
The defendant moved for a mistrial and appealed, arguing (1) the amendment prejudiced his right to notice and (2) prosecutorial impropriety for repeatedly introducing or referencing S’s suicidal ideation despite rulings limiting such evidence.
The trial court found good cause to amend due to the minor victim’s testimony and concluded the amendment caused no prejudice given the defendant’s admissions and defenses; appellate court affirmed and found no deliberate prosecutorial violation of evidentiary rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused discretion by permitting amendment of the information to expand date range mid-trial	State: Minor’s testimony required conforming the time frame; unexpected inability to narrow window showed good cause	Enrique: Amendment (adding Aug 2009–Dec 2009) was beyond original notice and prejudiced his ability to prepare, no good cause	Court: No abuse — good cause shown by minor’s testimony; defendant not prejudiced because he admitted key conduct and did not assert alibi or time-based defense
Whether prosecutorial references to S’s suicidal ideation during trial deprived defendant of fair trial	State: References were either elicited by witnesses, inadvertent, or fair recounting of testimony; prosecutor corrected/struck answers and did not deliberately violate rulings	Enrique: Prosecutor repeatedly injected suicide references (despite rulings), inflaming jury and warranting mistrial	Court: No prosecutorial impropriety — references were not deliberate violations; where inadmissible answers arose prosecutor moved to strike and complied with curative instructions; closing argument recounted testimony in evidence

State v. Mullien, 140 Conn. App. 299 (Conn. App. 2013) (minor victim testimony can justify amending time frame to conform to evidence)
State v. Jordan, 132 Conn. App. 817 (Conn. App. 2012) (state must show good cause to amend after trial commencement)
State v. Wilson F., 77 Conn. App. 405 (Conn. App. 2003) (age and testimony of minor may support amendment of time allegations)
State v. Grant, 83 Conn. App. 90 (Conn. App. 2004) (no prejudice from amplifying time when defendant lacks alibi/time-based defense)
State v. Tanzella, 226 Conn. 601 (Conn. 1993) (prejudice analysis focuses on ability to prepare defense; amendment must affect asserted defense)
State v. Medrano, 308 Conn. 604 (Conn. 2013) (two-step test for prosecutorial impropriety: whether improper and whether it deprived due process)
State v. Lopez, 280 Conn. 779 (Conn. 2006) (inadvertent introduction of inadmissible evidence, promptly corrected, weighs against finding deliberate misconduct)
State v. Taft, 306 Conn. 749 (Conn. 2012) (prosecutor may argue forcefully but must confine argument to evidence and reasonable inferences)
State v. Victor C., 145 Conn. App. 54 (Conn. App. 2013) (attacking witness credibility is logically distinct from time-frame amendments)