Mattos

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that the trial court properly admitted limited constancy-of-accusation testimony, did not violate the defendant’s confrontation or defense rights by restricting impeachment concerning a witness’s pending charges, and did not require a new trial despite an uncured duplicitous sexual-assault count. The court held that counsel’s failure to object did not waive the unanimity claim because the governing law changed after trial, but concluded that the defendant was not prejudiced because the evidence and arguments focused on one alleged act of anal intercourse and the defense treated the abuse as entirely fabricated.