If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

April 18, 2024

v No. 364585

Macomb Circuit Court

ROBERT OMAR CHIBIB, LC No. 2021-001809-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and O’BRIEN and MALDONADO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals by right his jury-trial convictions of discharge of a firearm in or at a 

building causing injury, MCL 750.234b(3); two counts of possession of a firearm during the 

commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b; and assault with a dangerous weapon 

(felonious assault), MCL 750.82. Defendant was sentenced to serve 2 to 15 years’ imprisonment 

for discharge of a firearm in a building causing injury; 2 years’ imprisonment for each felonyfirearm conviction; and 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment for felonious assault. We affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

This case began with a dispute regarding a $30,000 loan that the victim made to defendant. 

After growing frustrated with defendant’s ongoing failure to repay the loan, the victim confronted 

defendant at his store. It is undisputed that a heated argument ensued, that defendant pulled a gun 

and fired it multiple times, that one of the bullets ricocheted into the victim’s leg, and that the 

victim was unarmed. Defendant advanced a self-defense theory, suggesting that the victim’s angry 
-2-

demeanor and prior threats of violence caused defendant to reasonably believe that when the victim 

reached into his pocket he had a gun.1

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the prosecution did not offer evidence 

sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. We disagree.

This Court reviews de novo challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. People v Savage, 

327 Mich App 604, 613; 935 NW2d 69 (2019).

“Due process requires that a prosecutor introduce evidence sufficient to justify a trier of 

fact to conclude that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Tombs, 260 

Mich App 201, 206-207; 679 NW2d 77 (2003). To decide “whether sufficient evidence has been 

presented to sustain a conviction, a court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the 

prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential 

elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 

515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992). It is the jury’s job to assess the credibility of witnesses, People v 

Odom, 276 Mich App 407, 419; 740 NW2d 557 (2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted), 

and the “jury is free to believe or disbelieve, in whole or in part, any of the evidence presented.” 

People v Russell, 297 Mich App 707, 721; 825 NW2d 623 (2012) (quotation marks, citation, and 

alteration omitted).

Defendant argues that he acted in self-defense.2 “As a general matter, a defendant who 

asserts the affirmative defense of self-defense admits the crime but seeks to excuse or justify its 

commission.” People v Triplett, 499 Mich 52, 57; 878 NW2d 811 (2016) (quotation marks and 

citation omitted). An individual who is not the aggressor may use a reasonable amount of force 

against an adversary when he or she reasonably believes that he or she is in “immediate danger of 

unlawful bodily harm” and “that the use of such force is necessary to avoid this danger.” People 

v Dupree, 486 Mich 693, 707; 788 NW2d 399 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

“Once evidence of self-defense is introduced, the prosecutor bears the burden of disproving it 

beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Fortson, 202 Mich App 13, 20; 507 NW2d 763 (1993). A 

victim’s testimony can, on its own, be sufficient to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See 

People v Szalma, 487 Mich 708, 724; 790 NW2d 662 (2010).

In this case, the victim’s testimony was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 

defendant did not act in self-defense. The victim testified that he went to defendant’s store to 

confront him about the unpaid loan. The victim began discussing the matter with defendant, got 

angry, and began to yell at him. Defendant then began yelling at the victim to leave and threatening 

to kill him. At this point, according to the victim, defendant took out a gun and aimed it at the 

 

1 Another person was present at the store, but defendant and the victim left the area where this 

witness was located prior to the shooting. The witness corroborated that the two were arguing, 

and he heard the gunshots; however, he did not see what happened.

2 Defendant only cites common law self-defense, not the Self-Defense Act, MCL 780.971 et seq.
-3-

victim. Defendant fired a shot, the victim began to run away, and defendant fired a second shot, 

which ricocheted and hit the victim’s foot. The victim testified that the two were 15 to 20 feet 

apart while they were arguing, that his hands were visible during the entire exchange, that he never 

gestured in a way suggesting he had a gun, and that he tried to flee after the first shot was fired. It 

is true that defendant’s testimony suggested that he reasonably believed he was in danger because 

the victim had previously made threats, was furious, and seemed to be reaching for a gun; however, 

the jury was free to disbelieve this testimony and to believe the victim.

Affirmed. 

/s/ Michael J. Riordan 

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien 

/s/ Allie Greenleaf Maldonado