Does a variance between the Information charging aggravated assault and rape, and (a) a 1)
conviction on non-conforming evidence submitted at trial, and (b) misleading jury instructions,
constitute such a fatal variance as would deny petitioner due process of law as demanded of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Did the district court in the last reasoned-decision err by denying habeas relief to petitioner 2)
while concomitantly acknowledging perjury on the part of the prosecutrix so as to obviate
petitioner 's rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution?

Was petitioner denied effective assistance under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution 3)
of the United States for trial counsel 's for failure to bring an affirmative defense under Idaho Code
§ 18-6107 which protects the sanctity of a marriage contract in state prosecutions for rape, and,
further, not objecting to a jury instruction that permits conviction based solely on lack of consent,
thus lessening the burden on the state to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt?

Does a variance between the Information charging aggravated assault and rape, and (a) a conviction on non-conforming evidence submitted at trial, and (b) misleading jury instructions, constitute such a fatal variance as would deny petitioner due process of law as demanded of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?