Manassas, Virginia — LaToya Crabbe, a 35-year-old pharmacist and mother of three, faces a second-degree murder charge after allegedly killing her husband, Curtis Crabbe, 36, in what she claims was self-defense. The incident occurred in October 2024, and following her arrest, a grand jury indicted her on January 6, adding a charge for the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
Crabbe, who was arrested on October 21, had reached out to authorities herself, reporting that she had shot her husband in response to a direct threat to her and her children. At a subsequent court appearance, her defense team presented allegations that Curtis Crabbe had previously threatened to burn down their house and take their children, a claim substantiated by texts shared by LaToya Crabbe’s mother.
In an interesting development in the case, prosecutors argue that the self-defense claim might not hold as they believe evidence indicates that Crabbe reloaded her weapon during the incident. This point could play a pivotal role in undermining her defense, suggesting premeditation or a continuation of force beyond immediate self-defense.
As the legal proceedings gain momentum, her defense attorney is pushing for her release on bond. This request will be reviewed in a hearing scheduled for Tuesday morning. The full trial is set to commence on March 3.
This case has captivated the local community, sparking debates on self-defense laws and the dynamics of domestic violence. Legal experts suggest that the outcome could hinge on minute details such as the timing of the shots fired and the nature of the threats allegedly made by Curtis Crabbe.
Further complicating the public narrative are contrasting portraits of the defendant: a healthcare professional and devoted mother on one side, and on the other, a woman who prosecutors claim went beyond self-defense in a domestic dispute. As the trial date approaches, both legal teams are preparing to present detailed narratives to support their claims, drawing on a mix of witness testimonies, forensics, and character assessments.
This case also raises broader questions about the thresholds for self-defense, especially involving firearms. It underscores the complex interplay between personal protection rights and the legal frameworks governing the use of deadly force in domestic settings.
As this case unfolds, the community and observers are keenly watching, knowing that the outcome could have significant implications for how similar cases are approached and adjudicated in the future.