Sufficiency of the evidence; First-degree home invasion; Permission to enter; Consciousness of guilt

The court held that there was sufficient evidence defendant was guilty of first-degree home invasion where he lacked permission to enter his ex-girlfriend, C.C.’s, home. Also, the trial court properly admitted the consciousness of guilt evidence. He was convicted of first-degree home invasion and unlawful imprisonment. He claimed that C.C. “lacked credibility as a witness on the home-invasion charge after repeatedly downplaying her relationship with defendant in interviews with the police and giving contradictory testimony on whether she gave defendant a key to her home.” The court noted that “C.C. testified multiple times that defendant did not have permission to enter her home on” 11/29/17. This was sufficient to prove the first element of first-degree home invasion where he “did not otherwise have a legal right to enter her home without her permission. Even if C.C. had given defendant a key months earlier, there is no evidence that he had implicit or explicit permission to use it on [11/29/17], after C.C. broke up with him a couple of weeks earlier.” To the contrary, the text messages she sent to him “insinuating that she had previously given him a key showed that she wanted her key back, as they said, ‘I want my key’ and ‘Bring me my key.’” Thus, the mere fact that he “may have had a key on the day in question does not show that he had permission to enter her home on” 11/29/17. His claim challenging the veracity of her “testimony that he lacked permission to enter the home goes to the credibility of the witness and the weight of the evidence. The determination of witness credibility is the function of the jury and not of this Court.” Questioning C.C.’s credibility did not establish a basis for reversal. Affirmed.