DC Superior Court Judge Carmen McLean granted a motion that would allow the defense to question the victim in a shooting case about a past violent crime conviction in a hearing on Sept. 11.
Larry Carr, 21, is charged with two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, five counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence or dangerous offense, assault with the intent to kill while armed, aggravated assault while armed, assault with significant bodily injury while armed, carrying a pistol without a license outside of a home or business, and possession of an unregistered firearm for his alleged involvement in a non-fatal shooting on the 100 block Ridge Road, SE, on Oct. 22, 2023.
According to witnesses, the shooting occurred after an argument that ended with the victim holding a knife and the defendant shooting the victim.
The first motion proposed by the defense was to clip the beginning of a 911 call made during the incident. Defense Attorney Teresa Kleiman argued that the first 19 seconds of the call contained the caller crying audibly, which would prejudice the jury against the defendant without advancing the case.
The prosecution said the call was not “unduly prejudicial” and that the distress was necessary to provide the emotional context of the incident and the impact it had on those present.
Judge McLean granted the defense’s motion, agreeing about the impact of the caller’s emotional outburst.
The other two motions addressed what questions the defense could ask during cross-examination of the victim. Specifically, the defense claimed the victim was convicted of a simple assault and filed a motion to question the victim about it, arguing that the information would help explain the defendant’s state of mind during the shooting.
The prosecution said that any elicited testimony would be irrelevant and prejudicial, and filed a motion to preclude certain cross-examination questions of the victim.
Judge McLean granted the defense’s motion stating that the information would be important in a case dealing with potential self-defense, and that the jury’s understanding of the defendant’s claim of imminent of bodily harm would change drastically if the information were excluded.
Parties are slated to reconvene on Sept. 15.
