Whether there is sufficient evidence to satisfy Due Process and to convict the defendant for disobeying the hundred (100) yard provision of the order, which is the specific offense charged in the information?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Question (i). The information charges the defendant with violating a civil protection order (CPO) by being within a hundred (100) yards of the complainant. The same order, however, permits the defendant to be less than a hundred (100) yards from the complainant when both parties are at their shared apartment building. The trial evidence shows that both parties were present at the shared complex at the time of the alleged violation. Whether there is sufficient evidence to satisfy Due Process and to convict the defendant for disobeying the hundred (100) yard provision of the order, which is the specific offense charged in the information? Question (ii). Procedural rules and fundamental principles of notice mandate the presentment to the Accused of the factual allegations constituting the offense charged in the information. There is a disconnect here between the charging document and the trial proof. Whether the inaccurate information filed by the prosecution comports with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and its notion of fundamental fairness? Question (iii). The trial court twice noted the variance between the information and the trial evidence, but the government did not move to amend its charging document and the defendant did not raise initially that issue in his appeal. Whether Due Process permits an appellate court lo save a criminal prosecution via variance principles when the government did not litigate that issue at trial? Question (iv). Whether the variance between the information and the trial evidence amounted to an impermissible constructive amendment that is inconsistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?