there is no evidence that he knew he was positive until 1/06, and the complaint doesn't allege any. That he SHOULD have known before then, based on his various symptoms, is a matter of conjecture, and not the basis of "criminal" conduct. It might rise to tortious conduct, if her allegations are proven true, and though sections 29-34 of the complaint are worded broadly (as such complaints generally are), they clearly are about what he SHOULD have known. Of course, during all this time HE should have known, shouldn't she have? Why would she continue to have unprotected sex with someone whose symptoms she alleges were so obvious that ignoring or denying them rose to the level of negligence (civil, much less criminal negligence!). Wasn't she contributorily negligent? Oh the other hand, if he actually told her that he'd been tested on the numerous times that she alleges, and always told her he had tested negative, that's fraudulant behavior. Still, in most jurisdictions "emotional distress" needs at least some element of physical damage to be actionable, and certainly so for a criminal prosecution. She doesn't claim any battery, and as long as she tests negative, neither she nor any state may have a claim against him for what he might have or should have known. But certainly, if her allegations are true, there is moral culpability here.