Must the particulars of each count of an information be specified prior to trial, or can a prosecutor be allowed to match alleged acts to the counts in closing arguments?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED James Bradley Anderson was charged in the state of Washington by information on five counts related to molestation of a child. The information recited the victims and approximate dates and tracked the language of the statute, but provided no detail allowing the defendant to identify the specific conduct in question , or distinguish the counts. Although defense counsel twice requested a bill of particulars, no particularity was provided until the end of trial when the prosecutor was permitted to specify which conduct applied to each charge. On review the Court of Appeals of Washington stated “Nothing else in the record provides adequate : assurance that it was manifestly apparent to jurors that each count was based on a separate act.” The Court of Appeals of Washington vacated one of the counts, but left intact the remaining counts. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE ; 1. Must the particulars of each count of an information be specified prior to trial, or can a prosecutor be allowed to match alleged acts to the counts in closing arguments? 2. Where the appeals court has held that the jury was not clear that the various counts needed to be . based on separate acts, should the convictions be ; vacated under the plain error doctrine? ; 3. Has a defense attorney provided ineffective assistance where she proposes instructions that fail : to object to the double jeopardy and abet in the confusion on the counts?