In State v. Saraceno, 15 Conn. App. 222, 231, 545 A.2d 1116, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 823, 824, 552 A.2d 431, 432 (1988), the defendant was accused of committing sexual assault on a young child on multiple occasions over a period of time. Id., 227-28. In addressing each of the policy considerations, this court concluded that because the offenses charged were exactly the same, there was no chance that the jury would return a general verdict on an entire count, obscuring a finding of not guilty. Id., 229. Given the simplicity of the evidence before the jury, it was not possible that the jury did not return a unanimous verdict. Id., 230. There was adequate notice to the defendant because he was charged with the commission of only one crime within a specific span of time. Id., 231. Furthermore, because the defendant was charged with but a single crime, the court was not presented with a sentencing quandary. Id. Finally, because the counts of the information sufficiently delineated the time within which the defendant committed the crime, the state could not raise the same charges against him for acts occurring within that period of time. Id., 232. The state, "to the best of its ability," identified in a substitute information the time and date of when the charged offenses of sexual assault occurred. The Court held that "the general rule in Connecticut is that time is not an essential ingredient of the crime of sexual assault." 15 Conn. App. at 236. Furthermore, we noted that there was no evidence that the state knew the precise dates of the offenses and deliberately withheld them from the defendant. Id. Had that been the case, "the defendant's claim . . . Would have been more convincing." Id.