Thank you for reading D.C. Witness.
Help us continue our mission into 2025 by donating to our end of year campaign.
By
Alex Garcia Pecina
- October 30, 2024
Daily Stories
|
stabbing
|
Suspects
|
Victims
|
Prosecutors highlighted apparent inconsistencies in a stabbing defendant’s trial testimony on Oct. 25, before DC Superior Court Judge Heidi Pasichow.
Charlotte Norris, 40, is charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and second-degree burglary for her alleged involvement in a stabbing on the 2100 block of 1st Street, SW on Aug. 18, 2023. One individual sustained arm injuries.
Norris was called back to the stand by her attorney, Claudine Harrison, to explain under cross examination about several seeming inconsistencies in her testimony.
The prosecution previously tried to refute Norris’ initial testimony under cross-examination. She revealed that she had been knocking hard on the victim’s door before the victim dragged her in by pulling her hair. While on the floor, she reached for a knife, and slashed the victim’s hands. She explained that she quickly ran out after the victim let go of her hair.
Harrison then showed the court a video of Norris explaining to officers how the victim and another person kicked her out of the apartment.
The prosecution also asked why she took so long to answer the police after she went back home. According to Norris, she did not hear the police officers because she was changing clothes, not showering. However, her attorney revealed through another video that Norris previously told officers that she was showering while they were knocking.
The prosecutor also questioned Norris about prior arguments with the victim, right before the altercation. She did not recall any arguments that she had with the victim at all. The prosecution, yet again, showed a video of her explaining to officers how she had been in an argument right before the altercation.
“It is not self-defense,” the prosecution argued in closing arguments. Actively heading to the victim’s home at 5 a. m., banging on their door, pushing to get through, and slashing the victim with a knife is not self-defense,” according to the prosecutor.
The prosecutor reminded the jury that on Oct. 24, Norris told them “I knew I had did something wrong.”
Harrison argued that the prosecution had not proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt. According to Harrison, the prosecution had not given a sufficient motive for Norris’ alleged behavior. “It does not make sense,” she told the jury, “you have to come up with a motive as to why the defendant went to stab the victim.”
The prosecution rebutted by recalling that Norris had purposely gone to the victim’s home to demand they return together.
Parties wait as the jury deliberates.