petition, made after the conclusion of the evidence and that concern entirely different victims and behavior will substantially and adversely affect the rights of a defendant. Simply put, to allow the State to add to the petition a previously uncharged act against a previously uncharged victim after the completion of the trial and after the witnesses have testified, transgresses fundamental notions of fairness and due process. See Roman, 1998-NMCA-132, ¶¶ 13-15, 125 N.M. 688, 964 P.2d 852; see also Marquez, 1998-NMCA-010, ¶ 20, 124 N.M. 409, 951 P.2d 1070 (“A variance [to an indictment] is not fatal unless the accused cannot reasonably anticipate from the indictment what the nature of the proof against him will be.”); State v. Trivitt, 89 N.M. 162, 169, 548 P.2d 442, 449 (1976) (<HOLDING>). In this case Child defended a different
holding that due process requirements may be satisfied if a defendant receives actual notice of the charges against him even if the indictment or information is deficient concluding that defective indictment did not violate defendants sixth amendment right because defendant was made fully aware of charges and potential punishment during guilty plea proceedings holding that a criminal defendant is entitled to know the charges against him and to be tried solely upon the charges against him internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that a statute must be construed so that no part of the statute is rendered surplusage or superfluous internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that apprendi error is harmless if the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been the same absent the error internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that reading the indictment as a whole we have no doubt that the defendant was fully aware of the charges against him