State v. Peluso, 344 Conn. 404

Victim originally told police (2015) the assaults occurred in 2010–2011 (fifth grade); the long‑form information filed at jury selection alleged those years.
Approximately 2–4 weeks before trial, while preparing the victim, the prosecutor learned the time frame in the information was inaccurate; the defendant moved out of the condominium in 2009.
At trial the victim testified the assaults occurred in 2008–2009 (third grade), narrowing the time frame to years during which the defendant did live at the condominium.
Defense relied on the 2010–2011 time frame as the foundation of its theory (that the defendant could not have been present); defense moved for acquittal when the victim’s testimony conflicted with the filed information.
The state moved during trial to amend the information to 2008–2009; the trial court allowed the amendment under Practice Book §36‑18 and granted a one‑week continuance; defendant convicted and sentenced.
On appeal and certification, the Supreme Court considered (1) whether the state had good cause to amend after trial commencement and (2) whether the late amendment prejudiced the defendant’s substantive rights.

Issue	State's Argument	Peluso's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused its discretion in permitting the state to amend the information after trial began (good cause under Practice Book §36‑18).	Child’s young age and typical date‑recall imprecision justify amending to conform to trial testimony; victim’s testimony could not reasonably be anticipated.	State knew 2–4 weeks before trial that the charged time frame was inaccurate and failed to amend before trial; no unforeseeable event justified midtrial amendment.	Reversed — no good cause: state was aware weeks before trial of the inaccuracy and failed to act.
Whether the late amendment prejudiced defendant’s substantive rights.	Time is not an element; defendant did not plead alibi; evidence otherwise put defendant on notice the allegations occurred while he lived at the condo.	Defense was premised on the 2010–2011 timeframe; amendment deprived him of the ability to pursue that time‑based defense and likely changed trial strategy.	Reversed — defendant was prejudiced because timing was a material factor in his defense; conviction vacated and new trial ordered.

State v. Ayala, 324 Conn. 571 (2017) (explains §36‑18 predicates and that good cause exists only when state could not reasonably have anticipated the need to amend before trial)
State v. Tanzella, 226 Conn. 601 (1993) (prejudice inquiry focuses on whether defendant’s theory of defense is logically distinct from the amendment)
State v. Ramos, 176 Conn. 275 (1978) (time is not always an element but may be a "material factor" in defendant’s case; defendant must show prejudice for due process claim)
State v. Enrique F., 146 Conn. App. 820 (2013) (upheld late amendment where state experienced unexpected difficulty obtaining narrower time frame from a minor victim)
State v. Wilson F., 77 Conn. App. 405 (2003) (considered victim’s age and trial testimony in finding good cause to amend time frame)
State v. Laracuente, 205 Conn. 515 (1987) (state need not disclose information it does not possess; distinguishes when amendment is required before trial)
State v. Bergin, 214 Conn. 657 (1990) (explains that "on or about" allows proof reasonably near alleged date but not differences of many months)