State v. Peluso

Summary

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the state to amend the information after trial began because the state knew weeks earlier that the alleged time frame was inaccurate and lacked good cause for delaying the amendment. The late amendment also prejudiced the defendant because the timing of the alleged abuse was central to his defense, even though time was not an element of the charged offenses and he did not assert a traditional alibi. The court reversed the intermediate appellate judgment and ordered a new trial.