(1) The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to amend the information during trial because Defendant was on notice of the State’s arguments, and his substantial rights were not prejudiced.

(2) Defendant’s jury bias challenge was unpreserved for appellate review, but in any event, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s request to strike Juror 23 for cause because Juror 23 did not give any indication that his life experience would prevent him from adjudging the facts fairly.

(3) The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting witness testimony because the testimony did not constitute hearsay.

(4) Trial counsel did not perform deficiently by [1] not objecting to Officer’s testimony, [2] not objecting to lay testimony about trauma and memory because counsel could have reasonably believed that the testimony could have damaged her credibility and aided the defense, [3] by not objecting to testimony under rule 403 because any such objection would have been unlikely to succeed.