STATE OF MISSOURI v. JOEL OLIVAS (2026)

Joel Olivas appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (“trial court”), finding him guilty, following a bench trial, of two counts of unlawful use of a weapon, two counts of armed criminal action, and three counts of second-degree harassment. On appeal, Olivas claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for unlawful use of a weapon because there was no evidence that the people at whom Olivas was shooting were in retreat at the time of the shooting, and because there was insufficient evidence of these predicate offenses, the corresponding counts of armed criminal action are also unsupported. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Factual and Procedural Background 1

At approximately 5:00 p.m. on January 17, 2024, three West Side men ² arrived at Crown Center, a shopping mall in Kansas City. They appear, on Crown Center surveillance video, to be shopping and eventually end up at Initial KC, a sneaker and streetwear store on the second floor of Crown Center. At approximately 5:32 p.m., while the West Side men are inside Initial KC, Olivas and his co-defendant, Brian Favela, pulled up to the front of Crown Center in a grey or silver Jeep SUV; only Olivas got out of the car. Olivas entered Crown Center, proceeded straight to Initial KC, and walked past the West Side men, making eye contact with one of them. Olivas then made a call on his cell phone, saying “pull up the car and unlock the doors,” and Favela is seen on surveillance video getting out of the Jeep and proceeding quickly to the second floor of Crown Center. Shortly thereafter, the three West Side men left Initial KC and descended the escalators to the first floor; Favela met Olivas, and the two followed the West Side men down the escalators, verbally harassing them and video recording them on Olivas's phone. Olivas told the West Side men he had a “switchie on me,” which means a firearm that has been altered so that it will function fully automatically, and Olivas told the men, “I'll lift this bitch,” meaning he would raise or brandish the firearm. Olivas taunted that the West Side men had “no yeets,” meaning that they had been caught unarmed. Olivas says into his phone video, “They walkin’ away! Ha, ha!”

Although the video is unclear, it appears to be undisputed that P.D., one of the West Side men, pulled out a gun and fired at Olivas and Favela, and then the West Side men all began running away, P.D. to the left, the other two to the right. Olivas and Favela both pulled out their guns and fired at all three West Side men. Olivas fired at least twelve shots, and Favela fired at least thirteen shots. Shots were also fired by a security officer and an armed bystander, so a total of fifty-four bullets were fired during the incident. Seven people were hit by the bullets, including Olivas. Olivas and Favela ran out of Crown Center and drove off in the Jeep. Favela dropped Olivas off at a local hospital and concealed the Jeep in his back yard. Olivas lied to hospital staff about how he came to be shot, claiming that he was shot during an encounter on the highway. The next day, Olivas was arrested at the Kansas City airport preparing to board a flight he had booked prior to the shooting. Olivas denied that he had been at Crown Center and denied he knew Favela, saying he “didn't have any clue who that was.”

Evidence later recovered from Olivas's phone showed that the phone was at Favela's residence at 4:36 p.m. on the evening of the shooting; at that time, an Apple trip map gave directions from Favela's block to Crown Center. Olivas searched for “shoe store” at 4:40 p.m. At 6:01 p.m., Olivas sent a text message saying, “Security. Shot me. I was smackin it out with succas in crown center.” The response read, “Wtf don't say too much on here gang.” Other messages on Olivas's phone read:

11:19 p.m.: “They ain't know it was me as of rn” and “I told them I got spanked up on highway.”

12: 19 a.m.: “At least I tagged every one of em n-i-g-g-a-s. Security shot me from behind on my foot shit crazy af.”

12:46 a.m.: “I was getting off on sukkas n security shot me.”

1:04 a.m.: “Naw hell naw I wasn't lackin bro I let em have it I hit every sukka there. They just ain't die they gmfu lol.” And “Security shot me from behind on my foot sukkas was running.”

Olivas did not testify at his bench trial. The trial court found Olivas not guilty of unlawful use of a weapon and armed criminal action for discharging his firearm at P.D., the West Side man who fired his weapon first, but the trial court found Olivas guilty of unlawful use of a weapon and armed criminal action with respect to the other two West Side men because it found, “The evidence clearly establishes that both [the other two West Side men] were in retreat at the time that [the shooting] occurred” when Olivas and Favela “chased these people down the hallway, likely striking [one] down the hall,” and that “it's clear that that is what occurred.” The trial court also noted that the evidence showed that Olivas and Favela “didn't just shoot at the two individuals who were running away,” they “shot everything as they came into contact. The Empanada Madness location ․ was completely decimated by what [the] defendants were doing.” They “unloaded [their] guns in a very highly populated area, in a location that was enclosed. This wasn't a place where people could easily disperse.” The court thus found that Olivas's actions with respect to the other two West Side men were offensive rather than defensive. This appeal follows.

Standard of Review

All of Olivas's points on appeal allege that there was not sufficient evidence to support his convictions. “Appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence is limited to whether the State has introduced adequate evidence from which a reasonable finder of fact could have found each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Lammers, 479 S.W.3d 624, 632 (Mo. banc 2016). We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and grant the State all reasonable inferences. Id. “[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Hougardy, 396 S.W.3d 443, 447 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Analysis

Olivas's Points I and III allege that there was not sufficient evidence to support his convictions for unlawful use of a weapon as there was no evidence that the victims were in retreat when Olivas shot at them. Points II and IV allege that, because there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions for unlawful use of a weapon, there was also insufficient evidence to support the convictions for the corresponding offenses of armed criminal action. The evidence supporting all counts and Olivas's legal arguments as to each point are identical so we will address the points together.

The indictment against Olivas alleged that he committed the felony of unlawful use of a weapon in that he, “acting alone or purposefully in concert with others, knowingly discharged a firearm at another person or persons,” specifically the West Side men. Olivas injected the issue of self-defense, and while the trial court accepted that Olivas acted in self-defense as to P.D., whom it apparently found had fired the first shot, the court did not find that Olivas was acting in self-defense with respect to the other two West Side men. “Self-defense is an issue for the factfinder when there is conflicting evidence or different inferences could be reasonably drawn from the evidence.” State v. Jones, 553 S.W.3d 909, 914 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). A person may use physical force to defend himself from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force “by such other person.” Section 563.031.1;³ State v. Demery, 568 S.W.3d 552, 555 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019). While P.D. shot at Olivas and Favela, there is no evidence that the other two West Side men fired any shots. In fact, when the shots were fired, P.D., who was found to have fired the first shot, ran in a different direction than the other two West Side men, yet Olivas and Favela also fired in the direction of the other two men who ran into a bathroom.

A person may not use physical force upon another when he is the initial aggressor. § Section 563.031.1(1). “An initial aggressor is one who first attacks or threatens to attack another.” State v. Morse, 498 S.W.3d 467, 472 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The video evidence shows Olivas and Favela driving up to Crown Center, Olivas exiting the vehicle and quickly making his way directly to where the West Side men were shopping. The store employee testified that Olivas entered the store, made eye contact with at least one of the West Side men, and made a phone call telling someone to “pull up the car and unlock the doors.” Favela is then seen exiting the vehicle. The West Side men exit the store, and Olivas follows them. Favela joins Olivas, and both men are verbally harassing the West Side men as they follow them and as the West Side men are walking away. Olivas can be heard saying he had a “switchie on me,” which means a firearm that has been altered so that it will function fully automatically, and Olivas told the men, “I'll lift this bitch,” meaning he would raise or brandish the firearm. Olivas taunted that the West Side men had “no yeets,” meaning that they had been caught unarmed. Olivas says into his phone video, “They walkin’ away! Ha, ha!” The evidence supported a finding by the trial court that Olivas was the initial aggressor, at least as to two of the three men, in that he was threatening men whom he believed to be unarmed and walking away with what he claimed was essentially a fully automatic weapon.

Moreover, Olivas and Favela fled the mall and drove off after the shooting. In determining whether a defendant acted in self-defense, his actions after a shooting are relevant--for example, whether the shooter renders assistance, calls an ambulance, stays to talk to police, or flees. State v. Pulse, 725 S.W.3d 686, 694 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025). Indeed, the bystander who fired shots when the two West Side men fled into the bathroom stayed after the shooting to talk to police. “Evidence of flight is admissible to show a defendant's consciousness of guilt.” State v. Herring, 715 S.W.3d 623, 641 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025).

A defendant's “[c]onduct and declarations” post-offense are also relevant to show a defendant's consciousness of guilt when determining whether a shooting was justified as self-defense or defense of others. Pulse, 725 S.W.3d at 696 (quoting State v. Cannon, 215 S.W.3d 295, 301 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007)). Olivas's post-offense statements found on his phone included, “They ain't know it was me as of rn”; “I told them I got spanked up on highway”; “At least I tagged every one of em n-i-g-g-a-s”; “I was getting off on sukkas n security shot me”; “Naw hell naw I wasn't lackin bro I let em have it I hit every sukka there. They just ain't die they gmfu lol”; and “Security shot me from behind on my foot sukkas was running.” These statements support the trial court's factual finding that the two men at whom Olivas shot were in flight when he fired the shots and that he was conscious of his guilt.

Finally, “[a] permissible inference of guilt may be drawn from acts or conduct of an accused subsequent to an offense that tend to show consciousness of guilt by reason of a desire to conceal the offense or role therein.” State v. Webb, 569 S.W.3d 530, 541 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, Olivas lied to hospital staff about how he acquired his injury, lied to police about having been to Crown Center on the night of the shootings, and lied to police about knowing Favela. All of these are evidence supporting the trial court's finding of guilt and weigh against self-defense.

While the trial court could have found that Olivas acted in self-defense with respect to all three of the West Side men, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support its finding that Olivas did not act in self-defense with respect to the two men who did not fire shots. Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence to support Olivas's convictions for unlawful use of a weapon. And because the predicate offenses were supported by substantial evidence, his challenge to the corresponding counts of armed criminal action based solely on his challenges to the predicate offenses also must fail.

All of Olivas's points on appeal are denied.

Conclusion

For the above-stated reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FOOTNOTES

2.   One of the three men, P.D., had ties to a group known as the West Side gang. The other two men may or may not have been part of the West Side gang. This opinion uses neither their names nor initials of the other two men, but will, for simplicity, refer to the men collectively as “the West Side men.”

3.   All statutory references are to RSMo 2016, as supplemented, unless otherwise indicated.

Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge

All concur