Sufficiency of the evidence; First-degree home invasion; AWIGBH; Other acts evidence; People v VanderVliet; Unfair prejudice; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to call witnesses; Claim that counsel’s health & behavior affected the representation

The court concluded that (1) there was sufficient evidence to support defendant-Frazier’s first-degree home invasion and AWIGBH convictions, (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting other acts evidence about his actions after the incident, and (3) he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. While the trial court agreed “with Frazier that he and the prosecution presented two different stories as to whether he had permission to enter” victim-S’s house, it disagreed “that conflicting accounts amounts to insufficient evidence to convict.” It was “clear from the record that at one point, Frazier had a seemingly unconditional permission to enter [S’s] home. Before [S] and Frazier broke up, they lived together in” the house. The parties agreed “that Frazier was permitted to live there and had his own key.” However, S “claimed he never financially contributed to the household and Frazier acknowledged that he was never on the lease, so actual ownership was never alleged. Further, the record supports that permission to enter was revoked.” Frazier essentially asked the court “to disregard the testimony by [S] and her family members on the ground that their version of events is incredible, but this Court may not assess their credibility.” The court held that “a rational trier of fact could have found Frazier guilty of first-degree home invasion because the evidence demonstrated that he did not have permission to enter” S’s home. Frazier also argued “there was insufficient evidence to sustain his AWIGBH conviction because the record does not reflect that he intended to seriously injure” victim-DS. The court concluded that “a rational trier of fact could have found that Frazier’s actions and [DS’s] injury demonstrated that Frazier intended to seriously injure [DS] and that he was not in imminent danger and/or lawfully in the home he entered.” As to the challenged other acts evidence, it held that the evidence “was probative of Frazier’s common plan or scheme, the fact that his entry without permission was not a mistake, and that he intended to seriously injure [DS]. Any evidence of this nature will have some prejudicial effect on the accused, but here, even if there was any danger of unfair prejudice, this danger was alleviated by its proper purpose and the trial court’s limiting instruction.”