Modified jury instruction on the elements of first-degree home invasion; MCL 750.110a(2); “Without permission”; Instruction on the defense of property by ejectment of a trespasser; Failure to give an instruction on the defense of others; Admission of false statements defendant made to police; Relevance; MRE 401; Lying to police as evidence of a defendant’s consciousness of guilt; Denial of an adjournment

The court rejected defendant’s arguments as to the jury instructions and concluded that the trial court did not err in allowing some false statements he made to police into evidence. It also found no abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion for an adjournment. Thus, it affirmed his first-degree home invasion conviction. He claimed that the trial court improperly modified the jury instructions on the elements of first-degree home invasion. At the prosecution’s request, it “revised the definition of ‘without permission’ to omit the phrase ‘from the owner or lessee of the dwelling,’ instructing the jury that ‘[w]ithout permission means without having obtained permission to enter from any person lawfully in possession or control of the dwelling.’” Defendant contended that the omitted language makes it clear that “permission can be obtained from the owner of the property, which in turn means that [he], as owner of the house, could grant himself permission to enter, rendering him not guilty of the charged offense. Settled caselaw, however, belies this argument.” The court noted it has explained that “an individual may commit a home invasion of his or her own dwelling if the individual has lost the legal right to enter the dwelling, such as through a court order.” There was no dispute that at the time of the incident, “defendant was prohibited—by court order—from entering the house. Accordingly, as the trial court correctly concluded, [he] was not entitled to a jury instruction on ‘permission . . . from the owner’ because he did not have a legal right to be present in the house and could not, therefore, grant himself permission to enter.” The modified instruction “fairly presented the issue to be tried in this case in a manner that was clearer and more accurate than the unmodified version, and that was sufficiently protective of defendant’s rights.” The court also rejected his claim that the trial court erred in “failing to give a complete instruction regarding defense of property by ejectment of a trespasser.” Given that he “was not legally entitled to physical presence or control of the house at the relevant time, the trial court correctly concluded that the evidence did not support” this theory. Further, the court found “no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence did not support a defense-of-others instruction.”