State v. Quintero, 162 N.H. 526

Quintero was convicted of one count of felonious sexual assault and one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault in New Hampshire.
Indictments allege the acts occurred “on or between” January 1, 2007 and April 30, 2007; the victim was eight years old in 2007.
Victim testified about a single overnight visit during which the assaults allegedly occurred; a photograph dated September 17, 2006 linked to the time frame.
The State sought to amend indictments to cover a September 2006 forward time frame following a photograph disclosure; the defense argued this changed the timing issue.
The trial court instructed that time is not an element but conditioned the Williams instruction on the State’s amendment of the time frame; the defendant chose not to accept amendment.
On appeal, the court ultimately overruled State v. Williams and held the Williams instruction should no longer be given in trials after this opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Williams should be overruled prospectively.	Quintero argued Williams should be retained.	State argued Williams should be overruled.	Williams overruled; prospective effect affirmed.
Whether conditioning Williams on indictment amendment violated due process or grand jury rights.	State contends amendment was form-only and did not prejudice defendant.	Quintero argues amendment altered charges and violated grand jury protections.	Court allowed amendment as permissible form change; no due process violation.
Whether indictments could be amended to add timing after discovery of September 2006 photograph.	State contends timely amendment would not prejudice defense.	Amendment would prejudice defense by altering time frame.	Amendment permissible if done without prejudice and with advance notice; not an impermissible change in element.
What remedies exist besides Williams to handle time-frame defenses.	State argues discovery mechanisms suffice; no Williams in future.	Defendant seeks alternative protections (bill of particulars, confrontation, continuance, mistrial).	Four alternatives identified; Williams not required; discovery and other remedies suffice.

State v. Williams, 137 N.H. 343 (1993) (time is not an element; Williams required when timely time-frame defense arises)
Jacobs v. Director, N.H. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 149 N.H. 502 (2003) (stare decisis factors guide overruling precedents)
State v. Duran, 158 N.H. 146 (2008) (overruled prior rule when justified by principles of stare decisis and law development)
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (four-factor test for overruling precedents; framework adopted in state law)
State v. Nadeau, 126 N.H. 120 (1985) (discovery rules and sanctions to avoid trial surprise)