People of Michigan v. Kaine Daniel Hardenburgh

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 11, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:16 PM V No. 364932 Grand Traverse Circuit Court KAINE DANIEL HARDENBURGH, LC No. 2022-014208-FH Defendant-Appellant. Before: MARIANI, P.J., and MALDONADO and YOUNG JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right his jury-trial conviction of first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2). We affirm. I. BACKGROUND In July 2022, defendant entered a house that he owned and went into a bedroom, where his ex-girlfriend at the time was asleep in bed with a man she was then dating (“the victim”). Defendant and his ex-girlfriend were the parents of young twins, and they all had formerly lived in the house together. At all times relevant to this case, however, defendant was not permitted to be within 500 feet of the house due to an existing bond order stemming from a domestic violence case between defendant and the ex-girlfriend. The ex-girlfriend was not subject to any such limitation and continued to live in the house. Testimony at trial established that defendant had previously ejected the victim from the house while breaking up a party involving underage drinking, and according to defendant’s theory of the case, he believed he had to enter the house on the day in question in order to protect his children from the victim. When defendant entered the bedroom, the ex-girlfriend and the victim awoke. Defendant climbed onto the bed and struck the victim several times, and then both men left the house. Evidence and testimony at trial indicated that the ex-girlfriend then met defendant later that day in a parking lot to retrieve the children for visitation. When defendant was later interviewed by police, he acknowledged speaking with his ex-girlfriend over the phone on the day of the incident in question but repeatedly denied having any other contact with her that day. Recorded portions of this conversation were played for the jury. Defendant did not testify at trial. -1-  The jury found defendant guilty of first-degree home invasion. This appeal followed. II. JURY INSTRUCTIONS Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by improperly modifying the jury instructions regarding the elements of first-degree home invasion and by failing to properly instruct the jury on certain common-law defenses. We disagree. “Claims of instructional error are reviewed de novo.” People v Milton, 257 Mich App 467, 475; 668 NW2d 387 (2003). A defendant has the right to “a properly instructed jury.” People v Mills, 450 Mich 61, 80; 537 NW2d 909 (1995). This means that the trial court “is required to instruct the jury concerning the law applicable to the case and fully and fairly present the case to the jury in an understandable manner.” Id. Furthermore, when a defendant requests an instruction on a theory or defense that has evidentiary support, generally the trial court is required to provide it. Id. at 81; see People v McKinney, 258 Mich App 157, 162-163; 670 NW2d 254 (2003) (explaining that “[j]ury instructions must include all the elements of the charged offenses and any material issues, defenses, and theories that are supported by the evidence”). Nevertheless, jury instructions are reviewed “in their entirety to determine if there is error requiring reversal.” People v McFall, 224 Mich App 403, 412; 569 NW2d 828 (1997). There is no error where the instructions “fairly presented the issues to be tried and sufficiently protected the defendant’s rights.” Milton, 257 Mich App at 475. Moreover, “[t]rial judges should not hesitate to modify or disregard the [criminal jury instructions] when presented with a clearer or more accurate instruction.” People v Richardson, 490 Mich 115, 120; 803 NW2d 302 (2011) (alterations in original). A. PERMISSION As noted, defendant was convicted of first-degree home invasion under MCL 750.110a(2). As is relevant here, the first element of that offense requires that the defendant either: (1) break and enter a dwelling or (2) enter a dwelling without permission. MCL 750.110a(2); see People v Wilder, 485 Mich 35, 43; 780 NW2d 265 (2010). The phrase “without permission” is defined as “without having obtained