Colas v. Tyree ( 2023 )

PRESENT: All the Justices
BRADLEY COLAS, ET AL.
OPINION BY
v. Record No. 211226 JUSTICE STEPHEN R. McCULLOUGH
JANUARY 26, 2023
LISA TYREE, AS CO-ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY TYREE,
DECEASED, ET AL.
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
Kevin M. Duffan, Judge
Bradley Colas, a police officer, shot and killed Jeffrey Tyree. A jury found that Colas
was liable for battery and awarded damages to Tyree’s estate. Colas appeals from this decision,
arguing that his motion to strike should have been granted because, when he fired the fatal shot,
he was acting in defense of another. Colas asserts that the shot was justified because Tyree, who
had experienced a mental breakdown, had been tackled by another officer, had fallen to the
ground, had picked up a knife, and was holding the knife in the air in close proximity to an
officer who was lying on the ground next to Tyree. The plaintiffs’ own uncontradicted evidence
established that Detective Colas was justified in firing the shot. Applying the adverse party
witness rule, the estate is bound by this uncontradicted evidence. Accordingly, we reverse.
BACKGROUND
I. TYREE SUFFERS FROM A MENTAL BREAKDOWN.
Lisa Tyree, Jeffrey Tyree’s sister, whom we will refer to as Lisa for the sake of clarity,
was “extremely close” to her brother. She saw him and spoke with him “just about every day.”
She described her brother as “the most caring, giving person that you could ever meet.” About
four to five days before the police were called, she observed a dramatic change in her brother’s
behavior. She said she had “never seen him act the way he did” during this time. “He was very
angry. He was all over the place with his texts and his conversations . . . just crazy behavior.”
She said, “I’ve never seen him do that.” She did not “know what was wrong with him.” She
tried to talk to him because “he wasn’t in his right mind” but “[e]very time someone tried to
approach him and talk to him about getting help, it just — it just made it worse.” During this
period, Tyree’s behavior kept “escalating.”
On Saturday, February 9, 2019, Lisa went to her mother’s house. Tyree was there, sitting
in a chair, outside. Lisa was startled. “[H]e just was crazy.” Tyree said he was waiting for their
mother, who was very ill, “to come home from the hospital.” Given their mother’s poor health,
it “was just absurd for him to even think that.” Lisa described her brother as follows: “His hair
was crazy wild. His veins were poking out of his neck. He was so angry. He was just like
cussing, saying things that I had never heard him say, just really, really angry and erratic.” She
told him he needed to go to the hospital to get help or she would call the police. Tyree
responded angrily; he stood up and bumped her with his body, “cussing and talking all erratic,”
calling her a “bitch” and telling her to “mind [her] own F-ing business.” Tyree was “talking
crazy nonsense and just very, very angry.” “[H]e kept bumping me and he was spitting on me,”
Lisa said, “and he literally bumped me from the start of the garage all the way up to the fence
until I fell down.” Lisa had never seen him do anything like that. She decided to call the police.
As she was leaving, she told Tyree, “[i]f you’re not going to go get some mental health, you’re
going to end up going to jail.” Tyree responded, “I’m not going to go to jail. I’ll go to the
morgue before I go to the jail.”
II. POLICE ARRIVE AT THE SCENE AND DEVELOP A PLAN TO SUBDUE TYREE USING
NON-LETHAL FORCE.
After the police were called, approximately 10 to 15 officers responded. Officer Sam
Beaton was one of the first to arrive at the scene. Upon seeing Tyree with a knife, Beaton
2
unholstered his weapon. Tyree advanced on him with a knife in his hand. Beaton retreated
beyond the fence that surrounded the yard. He then began to talk to Tyree in an effort to calm
him.
The knife Tyree held has a six-inch blade, with a serrated edge on one side and a plain
edge on the other. One officer described it as a “military-style knife.”
A number of police officers converged on the scene. Captain Kenneth Spivey was the
highest-ranking officer at the scene. Sergeant Adam Bernstein managed the details of the
situation. Detective Colas – one of the responding officers – was trained to deal with persons
experiencing a mental health crisis, and he is a certified crisis negotiator. Sergeant Bernstein
tasked Colas to work as a crisis negotiator, “to coach Officer Beaton through the negotiations”
with Tyree, and to help Beaton build rapport. For approximately two and a half hours, various
officers, and Officer Beaton in particular, spoke with Tyree, attempting to de-escalate the
situation. The ultimate goal was to persuade Tyree to put the knife down and receive help from a
mental health professional. Tyree appeared angry, agitated, and suicidal. Police had Tyree’s
brother talk to him, but that appeared to make him angrier, so that conversation was
discontinued. The officers provided Tyree with a cigarette and then a soda. Over and over the
officers tried to convey to Tyree that they wanted to help him, that they wanted to get him safely
into custody so he could see a clinician. At times it appeared that they were making progress,
but then Tyree would lapse back into anger and frustration. During this time, Tyree never made
a threat to any specific officer and did not lunge at any of them.
Tyree would sometimes hold the knife to his own throat. He said several times “that this
is only going to end one of two ways. I’m going to slit my throat and you guys are going to
watch me bleed out or I’m going to charge at an officer and force you to shoot me.” He said he
3
did not want to hurt the officers but said he would if they made him or if it was what he had to
do. Tyree seemed to become “increasingly agitated.”
The officers developed a plan: they would induce Tyree to put the knife down and
advance to the edge of the yard to obtain some cigarettes. At that point, Sergeant Bernstein
would give a distinctive hand signal. Officer Nigal Tuft-Williams would then signal to Officer
Dalton Ennis to deploy and fire a SAGE device at Tyree. The SAGE is a device that fires rubber
bullets. After the SAGE shot, a rapid action team would safely take Tyree into custody.
Detective Colas was not sure Officer Tuft-Williams understood the plan, so he talked to him over
a cell phone and used hand gestures in an attempt to communicate the plan. The officer holding
the SAGE device was moved behind a shed because Tyree became very agitated at the sight of
the device.
Tyree was offered some cigarettes. He placed the knife down and walked over to retrieve
the cigarettes. Detective Colas had his gun drawn, testifying that he feared Tyree could retrieve
the knife, scale the low fence, and possibly harm an officer. Sergeant Bernstein then gave the
signal.
III. THE PLAN GOES AWRY AND TRAGEDY ENSUES.
Either Tuft-Williams misunderstood the plan, or Detective Colas did not communicate
the plan correctly, because instead of giving the signal to deploy the SAGE, Tuft-Williams ran
into the yard and tackled Tyree. Tyree picked up the knife at about the same time Officer
Tuft-Williams tackled him. Both Tuft-Williams and Tyree fell to the ground, flat on their backs.
Both Tyree and Tuft-Williams were lying on the ground parallel to each other in close proximity.
Officer Beaton testified, “They were in direct proximity of each other. The best way I could
describe it is it’s almost like they were laying in bed next to each other facing the same
4
direction.” According to Sergeant Bernstein, Officer Tuft-Williams was within reach of Tyree.
Tyree lifted the knife up and extended his arm straight in the air. Officer Ennis testified to
similar effect: that Tuft-Williams and Tyree were on the ground, that Tyree extended the knife in
the air, and that this movement occurred before Detective Colas fired his weapon. Tuft-Williams
testified to his close proximity to Tyree on the ground and how he saw the knife rise in the air.
At that moment, after Tyree extended the knife in the air, Detective Colas fired a single
shot from his service weapon. At the trial of this case, he testified that he fired because he
believed Officer Tuft-Williams was in danger of grave harm or death. On re-direct, he stated
that “[w]hen I fired the shot at [Tyree], it was to save Officer Tuft-Williams’ life because [Tyree]
was holding this knife up in the air toward Officer Tuft-Williams and it looked like he was about
to stab Officer Tuft-Williams.” Officer Beaton similarly testified that he thought Officer
Tuft-Williams was at risk of serious injury or death at that moment. The tackle, the raising of the
knife, and the shot all happened “very, very quickly, within a second or two.” Following the
shot, the knife came down on Tyree’s chest, but it did not penetrate.
Tyree immediately received medical attention and was placed into an ambulance that had
been waiting, but the shot proved fatal.
Tyree’s estate sued Detective Colas and Officer Tuft-Williams, alleging two counts:
gross negligence and battery. The estate alleged that police shot Tyree while he was unarmed,
lying on the ground. The trial court granted Officer Tuft-Williams’ motion to strike and denied
Detective Colas’ motions to strike. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the estate on the battery
count but found for the defense on the gross negligence count. We awarded Detective Colas an
appeal.
5
ANALYSIS
Detective Colas assigns the following error:
The trial court erred in denying Detective Colas’s Motions to
Strike the Evidence and to Set Aside the Verdict where the
uncontradicted evidence — including binding testimony from
Detective Colas as the Estate’s adverse witness — all supported
that Detective Colas fired a single shot at Tyree under the
reasonable belief that such action was necessary to save the life of
a fellow officer whom Tyree had placed in immediate peril with a
raised knife. 1
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND THE ADVERSE PARTY WITNESS RULE.
“When parties come before us with a jury verdict that has been approved by the trial
court, they hold the most favored position known to the law.” Xspedius Mgmt. Co. of Va. v.
Stephan, 269 Va. 421, 424 (2005) (quoting Stanley v. Webber, 260 Va. 90, 95 (2000)).
Furthermore, “[t]he trial court’s judgment is presumed to be correct, and we will not set it aside
unless the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Id. at 424-25 (quoting
Stanley, 260 Va. at 95). Finally, “[w]e view the evidence and all reasonable inferences fairly
deducible from it in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at trial.” Id. at 425. The
estate prevailed on the battery claim. The defense prevailed on the gross negligence claim.
1
The estate asks us to dismiss the appeal on two grounds. It argues that the statement of
facts is faulty because it does not properly account for the standard of review and it further
contends that the assignment of error is defective because it “combine[s] two different rulings
into one assignment of error.” Appellee’s Br. 22. We conclude that neither ground provides a
basis to dismiss the appeal. First, the assignment of error, while challenging two distinct rulings,
centers on a single issue, namely, whether the evidence establishes self-defense as a matter of
law. Second, it will always be possible in a sufficiency of the evidence case, where the
arguments focus on the facts and inferences that can be drawn from the evidence, to contend that
a statement of facts does not properly account for the standard of review. In this instance, the
drastic remedy of dismissal is not warranted.
6
Our review of the evidence in this case is also informed by the “adverse party witness”
rule, which provides that “when an adverse party is called and examined by an opposing party,
the latter is bound by all of the former’s testimony that is uncontradicted and is not inherently
improbable.” Economopoulos v. Kolaitis, 259 Va. 806, 812 (2000).
When a party has called an adverse witness, usually the other party
or an employee thereof, it is often said that the adverse witness’s
testimony is “binding” on the calling party. This applies, however,
only to so much of the adverse witness’s testimony as is not
contradicted by or in conflict with the calling party’s other
evidence.
Kent Sinclair, The Law of Evidence in Virginia § 15-40[c], 1183 (8th ed. 2018) (emphasis in
original). The rule is apparently grounded in the notion that, “[b]y calling the witness . . . a party
represents him to the court as worthy of credit.” I Francis Wharton, A Commentary on the Law
of Evidence in Civil Cases 523-24 (1877). Detective Colas was called as a witness by the estate.
Therefore, the estate is bound by his testimony, but only insofar as it “is uncontradicted and is
not inherently improbable.” Economopoulos, 259 Va. at 812.
Several examples illustrate the application of the doctrine. In Beale v. Jones, 210 Va.
519, 522 (1970), this Court reversed a jury’s negligence verdict against Beale based on the
uncontradicted testimony of an adverse party witness that Beale’s negligence was not the
proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Jones brought a personal injury suit against two
drivers, Stecker and Beale, for injuries sustained when her vehicle was struck by Stecker’s. Id. at
520. Jones was turning when a car driven by Stecker struck Jones’ car. Id. Soon afterwards,
Stecker’s car was struck again, this time by Beale. Id. Beale was intoxicated. Id. at 520-21.
Jones brought suit against both Stecker and Beale, arguing that Beale’s negligent conduct was
the proximate cause of Stecker’s collision with Jones. Id. at 520-22. At trial, Stecker testified as
an adverse party witness “that Beale’s presence and conduct did not ‘detract’ his attention from
7
the road.” Id. at 522. Although the jury returned a verdict against both Beale and Stecker, this
Court “found the evidence insufficient to support a verdict against [Beale].” Id. Given Stecker’s
“positive and uncontradicted testimony,” the jury’s finding that Beale’s negligence was a
proximate cause of Jones’ injuries was based solely on “conjecture or speculation.” Id.In Nosay v. Owens, 193 Va. 343, 347-49 (1952), this Court again set aside a jury’s
negligence verdict based on the uncontradicted testimony of an adverse party witness. A
six-year-old boy was injured when he was struck by the defendant’s vehicle. Id. at 344-45.
However, the defendant testified as an adverse party witness that the boy ran out from behind an
oncoming car and into the side of his vehicle. Id. at 347. The Court held that the defendant’s
uncontradicted testimony, to which the plaintiff was bound, demonstrated that he “violated no
duty imposed upon him by law.” Id. at 348-49. Therefore, this Court reversed the judgment of
the trial court and entered final judgment in favor of the defendant. Id. at 349.
We have also applied the adverse party witness rule to affirmative defenses, such as
assumption of the risk and contributory negligence. In S&W Motor Lines, Inc. v. Bayliss, 212
Va. 124, 124-25 (1971), this Court held that the uncontroverted testimony of an adverse party
witness was sufficient to establish contributory negligence as a matter of law and justified
reversing the jury’s verdict in the plaintiff’s favor. The plaintiff brought a wrongful death action
on behalf of her husband against a truck driver and his employer after her husband was killed in
a collision with the truck driver’s tractor trailer. Id. at 124. The plaintiff called the truck driver
defendant as an adverse party witness, and he testified that the decedent “was driving on the
wrong side of the highway until immediately before the collision.” Id. at 125. The jury entered
a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor. Id. at 124. However, this Court held that because the adverse
party witness’s testimony “was not contradicted by any of plaintiff’s evidence, nor was it
8
incredible, illogical or unreasonable,” the testimony was sufficient to prove the decedent’s
contributory negligence as a matter of law and justified reversing the jury’s verdict. Id. at 125. 2
When testimony of an adverse party witness is involved, a reviewing court does not look
to the witness’s credibility globally, as it would in an ordinary sufficiency of the evidence case.
Rather, the adverse party witness rule requires a reviewing court to examine the testimony of a
party called as a witness by the opposing party and to sift what is uncontradicted from what is
contradicted (or inherently incredible). See, e.g., Economopoulos, 259 Va. at 812; Nosay, 193
Va. at 348-49; see also Sinclair, The Law of Evidence in Virginia § 15-40[c], 1183 (the rule
applies “only to so much of the adverse witness’s testimony as is not contradicted by or in
conflict with the calling party’s other evidence”) (emphasis in original). If testimony from an
adverse party witness is uncontradicted on a specific factual point, the plaintiff is bound by it. In
addition, we have repeatedly rejected the notion that the “positive testimony” of an adverse party
witness – specific factual testimony – can be overcome by other evidence, such as inferences
drawn from primary facts, or “negative” testimony from a witness. See Ragland v. Rutledge, 234
Va. 216, 219 (1987) (inference that the truck was in the wrong lane “cannot serve to contradict
the clear and reasonable testimony of the truck driver that the truck remained in its proper lane”);
Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line R.R. Co. v. C.F. Mueller Co., 197 Va. 533, 537-40 (1955) (the
“negative evidence” from the plaintiffs’ non-adverse witness was “insufficient to contradict the
2
Although these cases did not involve the adverse party witness rule, we have held in
several cases that the plaintiff’s own evidence established an affirmative defense as a matter of
law. See Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Mizelle, 136 Va. 237, 257 (1923) (holding that
assumption of the risk was established by the plaintiff’s own evidence and reversing the verdict
for the plaintiff); Piedmont Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Patteson, 84 Va. 747, 768, 771 (1888)
(holding that “from the plaintiff’s own showing, the inference of contributory negligence by [the
plaintiff] . . . is inevitable” and that thus “the verdict must be set aside”).
9
positive testimony” of the plaintiffs’ adverse witness, and the plaintiffs were bound by the
adverse witness’s testimony; consequently, the trial court “erred in submitting th[e] question of
negligence to the jury”).
II. THE PLAINTIFFS’ OWN EVIDENCE, INCLUDING TESTIMONY THE PLAINTIFFS ADDUCED
FROM AN ADVERSE PARTY, ESTABLISHES DEFENSE OF ANOTHER AS A MATTER OF
LAW.
“The tort of battery is an unwanted touching which is neither consented to, excused, nor
justified.” Koffman v. Garnett, 265 Va. 12, 16 (2003); see also Parish v. Commonwealth, 56 Va.
App. 324, 330 (2010) (A battery is the “‘wil[l]ful or unlawful touching’ of another.” (alteration
in original) (quoting Wood v. Commonwealth, 149 Va. 401, 404 (1927))). However, not every
touching is a battery. Id. “[A] touching is not a battery if it is ‘justified or excused.’” Id. at 330-
31 (quoting Perkins v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 326, 330 (2000)).
Colas contends that he acted in defense of another. A number of settled legal principles
of the law governing self-defense guide our review of his contention. The defense of others “is
commensurate with self-defense.” Foster v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 380, 385 (1991).
Whether the accused justifiably acted in defense of another is ordinarily a question of fact. See
Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 971, 978-79 (1977). Nevertheless, undisputed facts may
establish self-defense as a matter of law. See Hines v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 674, 681 (2016);
Hensley v. Commonwealth, 161 Va. 1033, 1036 (1933); Smith v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App.
68, 69 (1993); Foote v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 61, 69 (1990).
In Virginia, self-defense includes both subjective and objective components. The
defendant “must have believed and must have had reasonable ground to believe, at the time [he
acted], that he was in . . . danger.” Perkins v. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 867, 877 (1947); see also
McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562 (1978) (“A defendant may always act upon
10
reasonable appearance of danger, and whether the danger is reasonably apparent is always to be
determined from the viewpoint of the defendant at the time he acted.”). 3
Once the battery is established, the burden rests with the defendant to justify it
“unless justification appears from the plaintiff’s evidence.” Bourne v. Richardson, 133 Va. 441,
463 (1922). Although defense of another is an affirmative defense, this defense operates in
conjunction with the plaintiff’s burden of proving that a touching is not justified or excused. See
Parish, 56 Va. App. at 330. In other words, the plaintiff’s evidence may negate the existence of
a battery by showing the touching was justified or excused. Here, the jury was properly
instructed on both aspects of battery. It was instructed that the plaintiff bore the burden of
proving that the battery was without justification or excuse, and also that it was the defendant’s
burden to prove “by the greater weight of the evidence that he acted in defense of others.” App.
764.
The estate observes that the credibility of witnesses is quintessentially a matter for the
jury to resolve. We agree. A jury’s verdict, however, must rest upon facts and reasonable
inferences from these facts. If a jury’s verdict “is plainly wrong or without evidence to support
it,” then it must be reversed. Xspedius Mgmt. Co., 269 Va. at 424-25 (quoting Stanley, 260 Va.
at 95).
3
We note an important difference in how self-defense operates in a criminal trial as
opposed to a civil trial. In a criminal prosecution, the burden of proving self-defense is on the
defendant, but the defendant is only required to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. See Lynn
v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 336, 352 (1998); see also Hale v. Commonwealth, 165 Va. 808,
814-15 (1936). In a civil case, self-defense, or defense of others, is an affirmative defense that
the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence. See Young v. Warren, 383 S.E.2d
381, 383 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989); see also Norton v. Norton, 335 So. 3d 371, 386 (La. Ct. App.
2021). In a civil battery case, as further noted below, that affirmative defense operates in
conjunction with the requirement that a plaintiff must prove the battery was not justified.
11
In the present case, there can be no possible dispute over several key facts. Colas shot
and killed Tyree. There is no disagreement as to that fact. It is likewise uncontested, both from
the plaintiffs’ and the defendant’s witnesses, that Tyree was experiencing a protracted mental
breakdown, and that he was angry and agitated – although the intensity of his emotion varied
over the course of the more than two hours that he interacted with the police. It is undisputed
that by his words and gestures he expressed suicidal ideation. He expressed veiled threats to the
police, saying “I’m going to slit my throat and you guys are going to watch me bleed out or I’m
going to charge at an officer and force you to shoot me.” He also said he did not want to hurt the
officers but indicated he would if they made him or if it was what he had to do. However, he did
not advance on the police so long as they stayed out of the yard.
Colas, called by the plaintiffs as an adverse witness, testified that “[w]hen I fired the shot
at [Tyree], it was to save Officer Tuft-Williams’ life because he was holding this knife up in the
air toward Officer Tuft-Williams and it looked like he was about to stab Officer Tuft-Williams.”
App. 132. The plaintiffs are bound by the testimony from this adverse party witness unless it is
contradicted or inherently incredible or improbable. Economopoulos, 259 Va. at 812. Colas’
testimony is not inherently incredible. Nor is it contradicted. To the contrary, the testimony
from the other witnesses corroborated Colas’ account.
Under settled law, “[t]he ‘bare fear’ of serious bodily injury, or even death, however
well-grounded, will not justify the taking of human life.” Commonwealth v. Cary, 271 Va. 87,
99 (2006) (quoting Commonwealth v. Sands, 262 Va. 724, 729 (2001)). “There must [also] be
some overt act indicative of imminent danger at the time.” Vlastaris v. Commonwealth, 164 Va.
647, 652 (1935). In the self-defense context, “‘imminent danger’ is defined as ‘an immediate,
real threat to one’s safety.’” Cary, 271 Va. at 99 (quoting Sands, 262 Va. at 729). A mentally
12
disturbed person who seizes a knife, and lifts it in the air in very close proximity to the officer
who just tackled this person, presents an obvious imminent danger.
It is also worth noting that the use of deadly force is justified if a defendant reasonably
fears “death or serious bodily harm.” McGhee, 219 Va. at 562 (emphasis added); see also Cary,
271 Va. at 99 (“[T]he [overt] act must be of such a character as to afford a reasonable ground for
believing there is a design to do some serious bodily harm, and imminent danger of carrying
such design into immediate execution.” (cleaned up) (quoting Sands, 262 Va. at 729)). All of the
witnesses corroborated Colas’ account that at the moment he was shot, Tyree had a military-style
knife in his hand that was capable of inflicting serious bodily harm or even a mortal wound. It is
also undisputed that Tyree’s knife was raised in the air when Detective Colas took the fatal shot. 4
Moreover, no evidence contradicts the testimony from all of the officers that after
Tuft-Williams tackled Tyree and knocked him to the ground, the two were lying on the ground in
very close proximity. Sergeant Bernstein testified that Tuft-Williams was “within arm’s reach”
of Tyree, and that he was in “imminent danger.” Officer Ennis likewise testified that
Tuft-Williams and Tyree were within “arm’s reach of each other.” Officer Beaton said the two
“were in direct proximity of each other. . . . [I]t’s almost like they were laying in bed next to each
other facing the same direction.”
In addition, the evidence, including a video recording from a body camera, shows
unequivocally that less than two seconds elapsed between the tackle and Detective Colas taking
4
Colas and Tuft-Williams thought the knife was beginning to move towards
Tuft-Williams. Bernstein saw the knife being raised in the air in a sudden gesture but did not
testify that it was being lowered towards Tuft-Williams. Under the standard of review, we
review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and therefore we accept
Bernstein’s account as the one more favorable to the plaintiff.
13
the shot. While courts assessing the aftermath of a shooting have the luxury of deliberative
hindsight, a police officer at the scene is required to make an immediate decision.
Taken together, the evidence establishes that an officer was on the ground, lying next to a
profoundly disturbed and potentially dangerous individual, who then lifted a military-style knife
in the air in such a way that the knife might be employed to stab the officer. Applying the
adverse party witness rule, the evidence establishes that Detective Colas faced an immediate and
possibly mortal danger to a fellow officer, and he was justified in taking a single shot in defense
of his fellow officer.
The estate does not point us to any contrary testimony or evidence that would alter this
evidentiary picture. Nothing in the body camera video contradicts Colas’ account or that of the
other officers. The estate’s brief concedes that “[t]he video does not clearly and definitively
show what occurred, nor does [a] ‘still shot’ [also contained] in the record.” Appellee’s Br. 32.
The estate did note at oral argument that Tuft-Williams had started to roll away from
Tyree at the time the knife was raised. It suggests the shot may not have been justified on this
basis. While the factual record does support the fact that Officer-Tuft Williams had started to
roll away after the tackle, this does not alter the reasonableness of Colas’ decision to fire a shot
in these circumstances. Tuft-Williams was in very close proximity to Tyree, and Tyree had a
knife raised in the air. In the immediacy of that moment, Colas was not required to wait and see
whether Tyree might plunge the knife into Tuft-Williams’ heart or neck, or whether something
else might happen.
The estate has abandoned the assertion, made in the complaint, that Tyree was unarmed
when he was shot. Instead, it intimates that Tyree did not raise the knife in a threatening gesture,
but rather that he was shot while he was falling, after he was tackled by Officer Tuft-Williams.
14
Colas, the adverse party, was questioned about this by the estate, and he denied that Tyree was
still in the process of falling when he raised the knife. The estate is bound by this testimony
provided it “is uncontradicted and is not inherently improbable.” Economopoulos, 259 Va. at
812. Detective Colas’ testimony is not inherently incredible. The other officers, when
questioned on that point, all agreed. So Colas’ testimony was not contradicted on this point; it
was reinforced. Sergeant Bernstein testified that Tyree’s right arm was on or near the ground,
that he had fallen completely to the ground, and then raised the knife in the air. Officer Beaton
similarly testified that after he was tackled, Tyree had both arms on the ground and then made a
sudden gesture with the knife. Officer Ennis’s testimony was to similar effect. Officer
Tuft-Williams also testified that Tyree raised the knife in the air. In short, no evidence
contradicts Detective Colas’ account that Tyree was shot after he fell, and that the shot was fired
after Tyree raised a knife in the air.
In its brief, the estate extensively discusses Detective Colas’ communications or
miscommunications with Officer Tuft-Williams concerning the plan to neutralize Tyree with the
SAGE device. Those facts were primarily relevant to the estate’s gross negligence claim. The
jury ruled in favor of the defense on that claim. Moreover, self-defense turns on the right to
respond to an overt act that creates an “imminent danger.” What was said and done before this
imminent danger may be relevant background, but it is not dispositive on the question of self-
defense. “The plea of self-defense is a plea of necessity and the necessity must be shown to exist
or there must be shown such reasonable apprehension of the immediate danger, by some overt
act, as to amount to the creation of necessity.” Vlastaris, 164 Va. at 651. “The necessity to kill
must affirmatively appear from the evidence adduced by the [defendant] unless the fact appears
from the [plaintiff’’s] own evidence or other circumstances in the case.” Thomason v.
15
Commonwealth, 178 Va. 489, 498 (1941). Here, all the evidence, from the plaintiff and from the
defense, established that Detective Colas faced an overt act that created an immediate danger.
This Court is frequently called upon to address the sufficiency of the evidence. In the
run-of-the-mill cases, we apply long settled principles of law with respect to the credibility of
witnesses. Here, the analysis differs from a run of the mill sufficiency case due to the
application of a longstanding rule, the adverse party witness rule. Applying that rule here, as our
precedent requires us to, compels us to reverse.
Every human being is a creature of eternal moment and infinite worth. Tyree’s death
constitutes an irreparable loss to his family and friends. Although the outcome was tragic,
Detective Colas’ decision to fire his weapon, on these specific facts, constituted defense of
another as a matter of law. The plaintiffs adduced evidence from Detective Colas that he fired
the shot in a moment of imminent danger to the life of another officer. Nothing in this testimony
was inherently incredible, nor was it contradicted by other evidence. The circuit court, therefore,
erred in declining to grant Detective Colas’ motion to strike.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we will reverse the decision of the circuit court.
Reversed and final judgment.
JUSTICE RUSSELL, with whom CHIEF JUSTICE GOODWYN and JUSTICE MANN join,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that “[e]very human being is a creature of eternal moment and
infinite worth[,]” that “Tyree’s death constitutes an irreparable loss to his family and friends[,]”
and that “the outcome was tragic[.]” Supra, p. 16. I also would agree with the majority’s
16
ultimate conclusion and reverse the judgment below if the question before us was whether there
was sufficient evidence to allow a rational factfinder to conclude that Colas fired the fatal shot
under a reasonable belief that his actions were necessary to save the life of Tuft-Williams.
Without question, the evidence at trial would permit a rational factfinder to reach such a
conclusion.
That, however, is not the question before us. Rather, the question is whether the evidence
adduced below required every rational factfinder to reach such a conclusion. When that question
is considered in light of the evidence adduced, the appropriate standard of review, and the
relevant burden of proof, it becomes clear that such a conclusion was not required as a matter of
law. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Colas’ motion to strike or refusing to set
aside the jury’s verdict, and I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion to the contrary.
I. Standard of review and deference to the jury
As the majority acknowledges, supra, p. 6, Colas faces a heavy burden in challenging the
jury’s verdict. “It is well-settled that ‘a party who comes before us with a jury verdict approved
by the circuit court ‘occupies the most favored position known to the law.’” Northern Va.
Kitchen, Bath & Basement, Inc. v. Ellis, 299 Va. 615, 622 (2021) (quoting Ravenwood Towers,
Inc. v. Woodyard, 244 Va. 51, 57 (1992)). When, as here, a circuit court “has declined to strike
the plaintiff’s evidence or to set aside a jury verdict, the standard of appellate review . . . requires
this Court to consider whether the evidence presented, taken in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, was sufficient to support the jury verdict” for the plaintiff. Parson v. Miller, 296 Va.
509, 523-24 (2018) (quoting Bitar v. Rahman, 272 Va. 130, 141 (2006)). Accordingly, “[w]e
will not set aside a trial court’s judgment sustaining a jury verdict unless it is ‘plainly wrong or
17
without evidence to support it.’” Fruiterman v. Granata, 276 Va. 629, 637 (2008) (quoting Code
§ 8.01-680).
Put another way, it is not enough for Colas to convince us that, viewing the evidence in
the proper light, some, many, or most rational factfinders (perhaps to include all seven members
of this Court) would conclude that Colas fired the fatal shot under a reasonable belief that his
actions were necessary to save the life of Tuft-Williams. Rather, he must demonstrate that no
rational factfinder could have concluded otherwise.
This high degree of deference to the jury stems not only from the fact that we are
reviewing a decision already made, but also because we recognize that the jurors are in a
superior position to make the decision in the first instance. They are entitled to such deference
because their decisions are made on the basis of “[t]he living record[, which] contains many
guideposts to the truth which are not in the printed record; not having seen [the witnesses]
ourselves, we should give great weight to the conclusions of those who have seen and heard
them.” Dean v. Morris, 287 Va. 531, 536-37 (2014) (quoting Fred C. Walker Agency, Inc. v.
Lucas, 215 Va. 535, 541 (1975)). In general, jurors “are the sole judges of the weight and
credibility of the evidence and have the right to discard or accept the testimony, or any part
thereof, of any witness when considered in connection with the whole evidence before them.” 1
Gilliam v. Immel, 293 Va. 18, 24 (2017) (quoting Smith v. Wright, 207 Va. 482, 486 (1966)).
Our deference to a jury’s credibility determinations nearly is absolute because “[w]hen the law
says that it is for the jury to judge of the credibility of a witness, it is not a matter of degree.”
1
The adverse witness rule is an exception to this general rule and is discussed in detail in
Section V, infra.
18
Sidya v. World Telecom Exch. Commc’ns, LLC, 301 Va. 31, 37 (2022) (quoting Simpson v.
Commonwealth, 199 Va. 549, 557 (1957)).
This deference is not limited to a jury’s determinations tied to testimony and witness
credibility but, rather, applies to all of the evidence, including video evidence. Even though we
are able to observe video evidence much as the jury did, our purpose in reviewing that evidence
is different. A jury, sitting as factfinder, “views video and other evidence to determine what it
believes happened”; an appellate court “view[s] video evidence not to determine what we think
happened, but for the limited purpose of determining whether any rational factfinder could have
viewed it as the [jury] did.” Meade v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 796, 806 (2022).
II. Colas bore the burden of proof on the pertinent issue
Adding to Colas’ daunting task is the fact that, in the trial court, he bore the burden of
proof on the issue pertinent to this appeal—whether firing the fatal shot was a permissible
exercise of the defense of others. As the majority notes, the defense of others is “an affirmative
defense,” supra, p. 11, and the trial court correctly instructed the jury that “[t]he burden is on
[Colas] to prove defense of others.”
The burden assigned to Colas on this issue included both the burden of production and
the burden of persuasion. As we previously have observed,
“The phrase ‘burden of proof’ refers to two related but distinct
concepts: (1) The ‘burden of production,’ which is the obligation
to come forward with evidence to make a prima facie case . . . ,
and (2) the ‘burden of persuasion,’ which is the obligation to
introduce evidence that actually persuades the fact finder to the
requisite degree of belief that a particular proposition of fact is
true.”
Suntrust Bank v. PS Bus. Parks, L.P., 292 Va. 644, 652 (2016) (emphasis added) (quoting
Charles E. Friend & Kent Sinclair, The Law of Evidence in Virginia § 5-1[a], at 298 (7th ed.
2012)).
19
As the majority’s recitation of the evidence demonstrates, there is no question that the
evidence satisfied Colas’ burden of production. 2 There was more than sufficient evidence to
allow a rational juror to conclude that Colas reasonably was engaged in the defense of others
when he fired the fatal shot. In fact, at oral argument in this Court, the estate conceded as much
(Oral Argument rec. 19:50-20:15).
Recognizing that the evidence was sufficient to allow a rational juror to reach such a
conclusion, however, is not the same thing as concluding that the evidence required a rational
juror to reach that conclusion. Colas had to convince the jury. As noted above, the jury was, as
a general proposition, free to disbelieve Colas’ evidence, having “the right to discard or accept
the testimony, or any part thereof, of any witness when considered in connection with the whole
evidence before them.” 3 Gilliam, 293 Va. at 24 (quoting Smith, 207 Va. at 486).
In its discussion of the burden of proof, the majority notes that, in the ordinary battery
action, a plaintiff bears the “burden of proving that a touching is not justified or excused.”
Supra, p. 11. The majority also notes the generic rule that a defendant’s burden to prove an
affirmative defense such as the defense of others only arises “[o]nce the battery is established[.]”
Supra, p. 11. While correct statements of hornbook tort law, these statements have little
application in this case given how Colas presented his case to the jury and a concession he made
in closing argument.
2
The recognition that Colas bore the burden of both production and persuasion on the
affirmative defense does not, in any way, suggest that he could not carry that burden by relying
on evidence adduced in the estate’s case. I agree with the majority that an affirmative defense
can be established in plaintiff’s case in chief if the evidence adduced so warrants. Supra, p. 11.
I disagree that, as a matter of law, the evidence in the estate’s case in chief did so in this case.
3
As noted above, the adverse witness rule is a limited exception to the general rule and is
discussed in detail in Section V, infra.
20
Colas conceded below that he committed a battery and only could avoid liability if the
jury accepted that he committed it in the defense of others. Specifically, in his closing argument
to the jury, Colas admitted committing battery, telling the jury: “Let’s move to battery. A
battery occurred. Detective Colas shot Jeffrey Tyree. We’ve covered it in detail already. He
was trying to save the life of Officer Tuft-Williams. The affirmative defense of others is
appropriate in this case[.]” (Emphasis added). Having conceded that he committed a battery and
could prevail if the jury accepted that he acted in defense of others, Colas effectively removed
the issue of whether a battery occurred from the jury’s consideration below and our consideration
on appeal. 4 Accordingly, the only issue on appeal is whether, when the evidence is viewed
under the proper standard, Colas was entitled to use deadly force as a matter of law.
III. Elements of defense of others
The majority correctly notes that the ability of a defendant to claim the protections
provided by the doctrine of the defense of others is coterminous with a defendant’s ability to
claim the protections of self-defense. Supra, p. 10. The majority also correctly notes that
“[w]hether [Colas] acted in defense of another is . . . a question of fact” and that question
“includes both subjective and objective components.” Supra, p. 10. To be privileged to use
4
It matters not whether the concession is considered one of fact, which would bind us,
Cofield v. Nuckles, 239 Va. 186, 194 (1990), or a concession of law, which would not.
Alexander v. Cobb, 298 Va. 380, 388 (2020). Even if Colas conceding to the jury that he, in fact,
committed a battery is characterized as a non-binding concession of law, the concession waived
any appellate argument Colas may have had that was premised on him not having committed a
battery. See Rule 5:25; Logan v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 168, 172 n.4 (2005) (en banc)
(recognizing that the principle that a party’s concession of law is not binding on an appellate
court “must be distinguished, however, from an appellant’s concession of law that qualifies
either as a waiver for purposes of [the contemporaneous objection rule] or as an express
withdrawal of an appellate challenge to a trial court judgment. In either scenario, we may accept
the concession—not as a basis for deciding the contested issue of law, but as a basis for not
deciding it”).
21
deadly force in defense of another, a defendant “must reasonably fear [the] death [of] or serious
bodily harm” to the person he seeks to defend. McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562
(1978); see also Caison v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 423, 440 (2008) (recognizing that for a
defendant successfully to claim self-defense, the “amount of force used must be reasonable in
relation to the harm threatened”) (citation omitted); Couture v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 239,
250 (2008) (recognizing that a police officer is “entitled to use deadly force to protect himself
. . . , but only if the ‘amount of force’ was not excessive and was ‘reasonable in relation to the
perceived threat’”).
That a person may represent an imminent harm and immediate threat at one point in a
confrontation does not require the conclusion that he or she retains that status throughout an
encounter. See Avent v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 175, 202 (2010). Even if reasonable, a
generalized fear of potential harm due to actions occurring in the past is insufficient,
Commonwealth v. Sands, 262 Va. 724, 730 (2001); rather, a “defendant must . . . show that [the
person he seeks to defend] was in imminent danger of harm, that is, a showing of an overt act or
other circumstance that affords an immediate threat to safety.” Hines v. Commonwealth, 292 Va.
674, 679 (2016) (emphases added).
Thus, to prevail on his claim of defense of another, Colas first had to convince the jury
that, subjectively, he believed that Tyree posed an imminent and immediate lethal threat to Tuft-
Williams when Colas fired the fatal shot. Then, he had to convince the jury that such a belief
was reasonable under all of the facts and circumstances.
IV. Evidence calling Colas’ actions into question
Ultimately, answering the question of whether Tyree posed a sufficient threat to Tuft-
Williams to justify Colas’ use of deadly force largely turns on the few seconds surrounding the
22
fatal shot. However, the majority correctly notes that the hours leading up to the fatal shot
reasonably could color the responding officers’ perceptions. Similarly, the facts about that time
period and other facts about Tyree’s condition reasonably could color a juror’s view of Colas’
actions and beliefs.
The majority focuses on certain facts—that Tyree possessed a knife, that he “was
experiencing a protracted mental breakdown, [] that he was angry and agitated[,]” and that he
had expressed “suicidal ideation”—as demonstrating that he posed a lethal threat to Tuft-
Williams. This recitation leaves out a few facts that certainly would be fodder for the jury’s
consideration.
Although Tyree did express suicidal ideation and did possess a knife during this period,
multiple witnesses testified that Tyree stated he did not intend to hurt the officers. One of the
officers present, Officer Murray, testified that he was not aware of Tyree threatening to harm
anyone other than himself. Furthermore, Officer Beaton, who was the first officer on scene,
testified that, in the two and a half hours prior to the shooting, Tyree did not threaten officers
directly and specifically stated that he “didn’t want to hurt any officers.” A rational juror was
entitled to consider this when determining whether it was reasonable for Colas to conclude that
Tyree posed a lethal threat to Tuft-Williams. 5
5
It is true that Beaton also attributed other statements to Tyree that might suggest he
posed more of a threat. The jurors, however, were under no obligation to accept those portions
of Beaton’s testimony. With the limited exception of a portion of Colas’ testimony discussed in
Section V infra, the jurors were not obligated to accept as true testimony that was beneficial to
Colas’ claimed defense. Rather, as “the sole judges of the weight and credibility of the
evidence[,]” the jurors had “the right to discard or accept the testimony, or any part thereof, of
any witness when considered in connection with the whole evidence before them.” Gilliam, 293
Va. at 24 (quoting Smith, 207 Va. at 486).
23
Furthermore, it is important to remember that in addition to Tyree suffering from what
the majority characterizes as “a protracted mental breakdown[,]” Tyree was fifty-seven years old
and suffered from physical disability that caused him to use a cane or walker to get around. Both
the video evidence and the testimony established that his movements were not those of a
physically vigorous person, with one police witness characterizing Tyree’s movements as
“shuffling or stuttering[.]” This contrasts with Tuft-Williams, who was younger, an active
member of the police force, and who, from the video evidence, did not suffer from a physical
disability sufficient to impair his movements. Certainly, Tuft-Williams’ movements at the time
of the tackle and immediately afterwards would not be characterized as “shuffling or stuttering.”
A rational juror was entitled to consider the contrast in the physical condition of these two
individuals in determining whether it was reasonable for Colas to conclude that Tyree posed a
lethal threat to Tuft-Williams, even if Tyree fell in close proximity to Tuft-Williams after Tuft-
Williams tackled Tyree by surprise.
Turning to the effect of the tackle, a juror could conclude that Tuft-Williams forcefully
taking Tyree to the ground would limit Tyree’s ability to respond immediately in an aggressive
manner. Although it is uncontested that Tuft-Williams was able to immediately begin rolling
away from Tyree after the tackle and was able in a second or two to get to his feet, it does not
follow that the fifty-seven-year-old disabled man who normally required a cane or walker to get
around would be able to respond as quickly. 6 Thus, even though the evidence established that
Tyree did possess a knife and held it aloft after the tackle, it did not definitively establish that he
6
According to Tuft-Williams, he began rolling away from Tyree before Colas fired the
shot.
24
was even physically capable of swinging the knife at Tuft-Williams quickly enough to pose an
immediate and lethal threat.
One reason that the evidence does not establish that Tyree was physically capable of
quickly swinging the knife at Tuft-Williams in a life-threatening manner is that the evidence
does not establish that Tyree ever swung the knife at Tuft-Williams. Viewed under the
appropriate standard, the video, photographic, and testimonial evidence established that Tyree
possessed the knife and held it aloft after being tackled by surprise, but nothing more. As the
majority concedes, no evidence that the jury was required to accept established that the knife was
ever directed towards Tuft-Williams.
Finally, in evaluating whether Colas’ actions were reasonable, a rational juror could
consider the actions of the other officers on the scene. Despite ten to fifteen officers being
present, only one officer, Colas, drew a firearm and fired it at Tyree as a result of the events.
None of the other officers at the scene reacted in the same manner, giving rise to a reasonable
inference that they did not view the potential danger Tyree posed to Tuft-Williams in the same
way. Although the fact that none of the other officers at the scene drew his gun and fired at
Tyree is not dispositive of whether Colas’ actions and beliefs were reasonable, it certainly is a
piece of evidence that a reasonable juror could consider.
Taking all of this evidence together, the question is whether a rational juror necessarily
would believe that a physically disabled fifty-seven-year-old man, who normally needed a cane
or walker to get around, who had stated that he did not intend to harm the officers, and who just
had been violently tackled to the ground without warning by a younger, more vigorous man who
was able to and did begin moving away immediately, posed an immediate and imminent threat to
Tuft-Williams because he continued to possess a knife he held before he was tackled. A rational
25
juror certainly could have so concluded, and thus conclude that Colas’ belief was reasonable. In
fact, it certainly is possible that many or most rational factfinders would have reached that
conclusion. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the estate and properly
assigning the burden of proof to Colas, a juror would not be required to so find. Thus, unless
some rule alters this straightforward, ordinary appellate review, the trial court did not err.
V. The adverse witness rule does not entitle Colas to a reversal
Both Colas and the majority assert that the adverse witness rule is a rule that, in effect,
alters ordinary appellate review of this case and requires that we reverse the judgment below.
For the following reasons, I disagree.
Properly understood, the adverse witness rule is a limited exception to the general
principle that jurors are free to believe or disbelieve the testimony of a witness. As the majority
notes, because the estate “called [Colas] as a witness[,]” it was “bound by his testimony” absent
an exception to the adverse witness rule. Supra, p. 7.
The majority notes that the estate would not be bound by any testimony of Colas that was
contradicted by other evidence or that was inherently improbable. Supra, p. 7. We have noted
other exceptions to the rule, noting that “[i]n addition to being uncontradicted, to be binding”
adverse witness “testimony must be ‘clear,’ ‘reasonable,’ ‘logical,’ and ‘not incredible.’” Kent
Sinclair, The Law of Evidence in Virginia § 15-40[c], 1183 (8th ed. 2018) (footnotes and
citations omitted).
In its analysis, the majority focuses on Colas’ conclusion that Tuft-Williams’ life was in
danger. It then compares Colas’ conclusion to the testimony of other officers who reached
26
similar conclusions. 7 Given the similarity in the conclusions reached, the majority opines that
Colas’ conclusion was uncontradicted, and that the estate is somehow bound by Colas’
conclusion, and that the jury was required, as a matter of law, to accept that Colas’ conclusion
was reasonable.
In doing so, the majority has conducted its analysis of the adverse witness rule at too high
a level of abstraction. Although there was similarity in the ultimate conclusions reached by
multiple officers on scene, there were contradictions in the evidence as to the factual bases for
those conclusions. Thus, a jury was not bound to accept Colas’ conclusions. Critically, Colas
claimed to have taken the fatal shot because after the tackle, Tyree still possessed the knife
which he held before he was tackled, and “the knife was moving in a direction towards Officer
Tuft-Williams.” Thus, central to Colas’ claimed conclusion that Tuft-Williams’ life was in
jeopardy was his claim that Tyree was moving the knife toward Tuft-Williams when Colas fired.
This underlying factual claim was contradicted by testimony and other evidence.
Specifically, as the majority acknowledges, there was evidence that—at the time Colas fired the
fatal shot—the knife was not being swung at Tuft-Williams, but rather, that Tyree was holding
the knife straight up in the air. Accepting that as true, it contradicts Colas’ testimony not about
an inconsequential detail, but about the primary factual basis for his claimed belief that Tuft-
Williams was in mortal danger. Because the evidence was in conflict on this point, the jury was
7
It is important to note that the jury was not bound, by the adverse witness rule or
otherwise, to credit the testimony of the other officers that is referenced by the majority. At the
time the jury was instructed that it was bound by the testimony of the defendant called as an
adverse witness, Colas was the sole defendant. Accordingly, as factfinder, the jury was free to
either believe or disbelieve the testimony, conclusory or otherwise, of the remaining officers
referenced by the majority.
27
entitled to disbelieve Colas’ statement that Tyree moved the knife towards Tuft-Williams. 8
Given that the jury was free to reject the factual basis Colas offered for his conclusion, it also
was free to disregard his resulting conclusion that Tuft-Williams’ life was in danger and that the
shooting of Tyree was reasonable under the circumstances.
Even if one were to accept that the adverse witness rule required the jury to accept that
Colas possessed the subjective belief that Tuft-Williams’ life was in danger, that was only part of
what Colas had to prove. He also had to prove that such a belief was reasonable. The fact that
he testified he believed it does not compel the conclusion that the belief was reasonable. The
jury was required to judge the reasonableness of that belief against all of the evidence, including
Tyree’s age, his physical infirmity, Tuft-Williams’ age and physical condition, Tyree’s
statements that he did not intend to harm the officers, the surprise nature of the tackle, and much
more. Certainly, the majority points to no testimony of Colas that definitively answers the
reasonableness question. Accordingly, even if the jury were bound by all of Colas’ testimony,
the jury was still free to find that his professed belief, though actually held, was not reasonable
under all of the facts and circumstances.
A conclusion that the adverse witness rule did not compel a finding that Colas acted in
defense of others is fatal to his claim on appeal. Absent such compulsion, the evidence presented
8
This is not the only portion of Colas’ testimony regarding Tyree’s potential
dangerousness that was contradicted by other evidence. For example, Colas testified that he
believed Tyree represented a threat to officers throughout the two-and-a-half-hour encounter.
Specifically, he testified multiple times that Tyree posed a threat because, carrying the knife, he
could quickly scale or vault over the chain-link fence, which was approximately four feet high,
and then injure an officer. This testimony was contradicted by the testimony of other officers
who did not perceive Tyree as a threat during this period and by the evidence establishing
Tyree’s limited mobility and that he normally required a cane or walker to get around. Given
these contradictions, the jury could reject the notion that Tyree had the ability to scale the fence
to pose a threat to officers and Colas’ assessment of Tyree’s level of dangerousness throughout
the encounter even though Colas testified as an adverse witness.
28
created a question of fact—whether Colas fired the fatal shot under a reasonable belief that his
actions were necessary to save the life of Tuft-Williams. Such factual questions belong to the
jury, and neither a trial court nor this Court is permitted to invade the province of the jury to
substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Because the evidence below was sufficient to raise a
jury question, the trial court did not err in denying Colas’ motion to strike, and I dissent from the
majority’s conclusion to the contrary.
VI. Conclusion
It is often said that hard cases make bad law. This case definitely is a hard case. As
noted above, it very well may be that most rational factfinders reviewing the evidence would
conclude that Colas believed Tuft-Williams was in mortal danger when Colas fired the fatal shot
and that such a belief was a reasonable one given all of the facts and circumstances. Accepting
that as true, however, does not entitle him to a reversal of the jury’s verdict. For the reasons
stated above, I believe that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the estate, a
rational factfinder could conclude that Colas failed to prove his claimed affirmative defense. As
a result, the trial court did not err in denying Colas’ motion to strike. Accordingly, I would
affirm the judgment of the trial court, and thus, respectfully dissent.
29