meaning of invasion is a hostile or forcible encroachments so if a resident consents to the entry then there is no invasion and then therefore the entry is without authority in this case the trial court after assessing the demeanor of the witness and made the determination that she had given witherspoon implied consent to come back into the home he relied as a vehicle and the testimony that she said that he knew that he would return with her keys and her phone and therefore that she was testifying testifying that he had the authority to enter now he had a bail order preventing him from entering the residence that should have no effect on the complaining witness is authority as a tenant under the law to invite persons onto the property earth already does not derive from a court it derives from her status as a tenant therefore the order did not override her consent furthermore there's nothing in the statute that provides the person who receives such consent but is subject to a bill order preventing them ordering them from not entering the property but that constitutes lack of authority under the statute in fact the legislature is not to find the phrase without a story after the read case when issue came up with a joint tenant who is subject to that we're protection the legislature responded by clue doing a definition of polling element of without authority is to prevent people from invading your home without your consent so she allows someone to come in and it doesn't matter that he had an order by from a court barring his entry it all focuses on whether that intrusion happened i think that's a plain make plain meaning of invasion and when you look when you consider the plain meaning of the purpose of the statute you have to  sense that ok i'm done that since then i think if i think it makes it much more clear when she was not it was not a party to the order that's not the case here but i think to be  let's say that she knew it was nearby and she had some kind of emergency call them in to help and then afterwards their disagreement and hit her should that be home invasion because she chose than to play for the benefit of the or the order protection i don't think so and also i argue that even if there is some kind of ambiguity we should be considering obviously the statute and paper defendants and the legislature has not addressed this by providing a definition of without authority authority for that they cited cunningham which of course was a different procedure a posture the defendant had raised on appeal issue of whether he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt obviously saw the demeanor of the witness you remember that he decided that she had not been raped there was testimony that when he was in jail the complaining witness sent to money she spoke to him on the phone she s trial i love him so it's not i'm reasonable it was not unreasonable for the trial court to make that finding that given all these these facts and observing her court cannot overturn the factual finding that she gave implicit consent and then the legal issue is if that consent if that consent trumps the order but even if you could i think i've heard the great the standard of great deference to two factual findings and after all this is a finding based on her mental state her intentions i you know reading you reading out a cold keys and she went to bed figuring he he's going to return them and i don't i think that that is a reasonable inference to be made considering the kind of relationship they factual finding made by the court was and correct i didn't find any case along those lines no i tried critics so the question i always like to ask is within the first this case couldn't be worse on one hand i'm on top of statutory interpretation and on the other hand i'm a talk about property law i think that's what this case is about i understand your hono concerns about the posture for reviewing this case i think it's something you tend to determine what the court actually meant by consent not about whether you're overturning a determination that the court made about how they viewed the witness and so if time permits i'll get to that but i don't think this court will need to answer the question once i go for the definition of the dwelling place of another here's what the statute says and i'm sort of paraphrasing to fit the scenario in this case a person  commits home invasion when without authority he knowingly enters the dwelling place of another subsection two and intentionally causes any injury except as provided in subsection a five to a person or persons within the dog was the court relied on subsection d to determine was this other court order sufficient to more or less from what be for the sake of argument her contempt consent so as a last resort i read the statute subsection the for purpose of the section dwelling place of another includes a dwelling place where the defendant maintains a tenancy interest a tenancy interest but from which the defendant has been barred by divorce decree judgment of dissolution of marriage order of protection or other court order clearly we have another court order here so i'm an inquisitive guy and i'm not real bright so i had to look up what a tendency interest was a tendency to hearken back to the bar exam because nobody practiced property law could be a leasehold the state a mere occupancy action that they do just as happens filing they should know this so that's the first part clearly at best under this argument he's an invitee she says church come on back notice one of the things that counsel didn't probably was inadvertent but it struck me she said that he was returning with her keys no no no he was returning with her keys and phone he had taken her her car keys and her telephone now  all of the members of this family have a lot more experience in the criminal justice system than i have but in a domestic violence case those facts means in this scenario about how valuable that consent is to return when this victim has been the victim of this the actions of this defendant and he has now removed her mode of communication and transportation that's number one so the second part is really we're talking about a tenancy interest the second part is interest what is an interest in the law in interest of the classic mike so here's what i think the defendant maintains in tennessee tenancy interest means in that statute in this context his right his interest as an invite t v but from which he is bar and the reason that this makes sense then i see you for in your browser let me be more explicit i think what the legislature is saying here in this context his interest is that of an invitee so she's invited him in and he has a right to be there because she invited him and the legislature has clearly contemplated this and they said barring the app if there's a court order it doesn't matter and this is what i'm about to tell you is exactly what convinced me that this is what the legislature was thinking clearly and i think your next case up is a domestic case a divorce case so this should be fresh on your plate barred by a divorce decree right so if this defendant had actually owned this residence by tendency by the entire for example just say that the most interesting could possibly happen since you buy entirety with with this victim they went to court and he got a court order he received a court order saying he could not be there even though he owned an interest in that property and she said you know what for the sake of the kids come on in to get your stuff so sasha isa's that's still home invasion why because the legislation the policy underlying this is clearly that they understand the dynamic in these types of relationships even in an amicable divorce where the court says there's a decree you're not supposed to go there you have to go there's a pipe so how possibl doesn't make sense it that can't be the policy of the legislature talk about in there is if you're pretending to be someone from the telecommunications company where you sort of you gain entry under some false premises you still haven't completed the crime you then have to also do want to do three or four right and in this case he did number two so you can cross the threshold pertaining to be a guy from the telephone company and you might trust fast because you lied about that but you're not guilty of this not until you pound on whale but other i think based on a false premise it could but i think we're passing each other as you are thinking of authority in other contexts where she's saying yeah sure that that's why i pointed out the terminology that use he has a tendency interest at so so let's just modify the facts of this case ever so slightly less just say that they had a previous agreement as leaseholders they both signed a lease for this residence can tendency by what based on tenancy interest based on things interest because it cannot have been the policy of the legislature as absurd as some of the statutes are it cannot be in this context when you when and again i have not drawn on the legislative history because that can often be sketchy and and  yearly driven but clearly following the supreme court case that's that site i believe it's people versus read it in the briefs the legislature modif statute to change the definition of dwelling place to cover things like this so how can it possibly be that if we had a situation where this was part of a divorce decree were both of these people owned interest in his saying i'm operating theoretically i'm safe even assuming that in those cases he gave permission if they're just dealing with the property interest that's why i'm saying this this can't have been the intent of the legislature to to let a guy like this place where it says dwelling place where the defendant maintains a tenancy interest but from which the defendant has been barred by court order so his interest in this case became the fact of immediately when she s ays come on back to bring in my keys and phone so that now he's got that interest he's got that can see interest just like the husband would have we back when they had a closing on the house i think this here i'm just going to can't be a home invasion anymore because i'm entering with authority or ignorance of the law is not a defense and i appreciate your honor's position i'm as libertarians the next person my point is you're not stopping this person any more than you're stopping her it let's just say they had a bail revocation hearing based on her letting him in the house there's no question that the court would say that he violated the terms of your bill you're not supposed to go there law they're saying that as a matter of common law or everyday practice if she wants to let him come in the house and where he she doesn't have legal authority to do it but maybe she lets him speed down the interstate this happens all the time but the fact is she does not have the legal authority because there's a court order in place to allow him in under the terms of the statute are there any no that's that's where the homeowner standing in the door and so you come out of it no but but but even if they don't if the wife stands there so that doesn't change the terms of the court order so the wipa standing at the threshold the door and says no you can't come in i hate you and i hate your whole family stay away and he comes then it and then doesn't it impact the terms of whether she has authority to grant it or not the court order exists but there's a court order could have just been drafted that she gave you permission to come in and everything's ok but then when he starts beating on her own that it's no longer permission to state in the premises they  whether someone has the authority d was happy for that situation where the person who was subject to the order of protection at some time interest they owned it they were the husband or they read together that was a wherever it is the wife whatever gives consent that's still not home invasion so there isn't this unfair situation of all while we're treating husbands differently than a guy here no it's because