Background
Joel Olivas and his co-defendant followed three men through Kansas City’s Crown Center while verbally harassing and recording them. Olivas said he had a “switchie,” threatened to raise the firearm, and taunted the men for being unarmed and walking away. One of the three men, P.D., then fired at Olivas and his co-defendant. The three men fled in different directions, and Olivas and his co-defendant fired at them, with Olivas firing at least 12 shots. Fifty-four rounds were fired during the incident, and seven people were struck.
After the shooting, Olivas fled, falsely told hospital staff that he had been shot on a highway, and denied to police that he had been at Crown Center or knew his co-defendant. Messages recovered from his phone described shooting at the men while they were running. Following a bench trial, the circuit court acquitted Olivas of unlawful use of a weapon and armed criminal action as to P.D., who fired first, but convicted him of those offenses as to the other two men, along with three counts of second-degree harassment. Olivas appealed the two weapon convictions and their corresponding armed-criminal-action convictions.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, the court held that a rational factfinder could find that Olivas was not acting in self-defense when he fired at the two men who had not fired any shots and were running away. The evidence also supported a finding that Olivas was the initial aggressor as to those men because he followed and threatened them while believing they were unarmed.
Olivas’s flight, false accounts to hospital staff and police, and post-shooting messages supported findings that the two men were retreating and that Olivas was conscious of his guilt. Because sufficient evidence supported the unlawful-use-of-a-weapon convictions, his derivative challenges to the armed-criminal-action convictions also failed.
Key Takeaways
- A person’s use of force against one attacker does not automatically justify shooting at other people who did not use force and are fleeing.
- Whether a defendant acted in self-defense is for the factfinder when the evidence permits conflicting inferences.
- Flight, false statements, and post-offense messages may support findings of consciousness of guilt and undermine a self-defense claim.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Missouri courts assess self-defense separately as to each person against whom force is used. Even when one member of a group fires first, the evidence may support criminal liability for firing at other group members who did not shoot and were retreating.
It also shows how surveillance footage and a defendant’s conduct and communications after a shooting can supply sufficient circumstantial evidence to distinguish defensive force from offensive conduct.