State v. Petitpas, 6 A.3d 1159

Petitpas was convicted after a jury trial of multiple offenses including sexual assault first and second degrees, unlawful restraint, risk of injury to a child, larceny, and mutilation of a vehicle identification number.
The state moved to amend the substitute information; the amendment removed language about threat or fear of physical injury in counts for sexual assault in the first degree.
The court granted the amendment, which limited proof of first-degree sexual assault to actual force rather than force or fear.
The state also moved to amend jury instructions; the court removed references to threat of force and reasonableness of fear as elements.
Petitpas challenged the amendments and moved for acquittal, asserting insufficient evidence of force and improper jury instructions.
The prosecutor allegedly engaged in improper closing argument, including a remark that the victim was telling the jury the truth.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amendment of the substitute information was proper	State argued good cause; no prejudice to defendant	Petitpas contended prejudice and lack of good cause	Amendment allowed; no abuse of discretion; no prejudice to defendant
Whether the jury instructions removal of threat of force and fear was proper	Amendment aligned with proof of actual force under the amended information	Removal affected essential elements like reasonableness of fear	Proper to remove; fear reasonableness not required for actual force proof
Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict of sexual assault in the first degree	Evidence showed defendant used force to compel sexual intercourse	Insufficient proof of force	Evidence viewed in light most favorable to state supported verdict
Whether prosecutorial impropriety deprived Petitpas of a fair trial	Prosecutor's statements were improper but within bounds	Closing argument misstated facts and bolstered witness credibility	One improper comment occurred, but no due process violation; trial fair

State v. Tanzella, 226 Conn. 601 (1993) (amendment burden requires good cause, no prejudice to substantive rights)
State v. Carbone, 116 Conn. App. 801 (2009) (abuse of discretion standard for information amendment; notice purposes)
State v. Arroyo, 292 Conn. 558 (2009) (charge reviewed as whole; correct if fair to parties)
State v. Angel T., 292 Conn. 262 (2009) (prosecutorial impropriety; due process standard)
State v. Sargeant, 288 Conn. 673 (2008) (sufficiency of the evidence; reasonable view supports guilt)
State v. Tanzella, 226 Conn. 614 (1993) (burden on state to show no prejudice when amending information)