Defendant accused of harassment claims he used ‘sexual sleepwalking’ to get out of jail

In the TSJA’s above-mentioned decision, compiled by Europa Press, the Andalusian Supreme Court considers this man’s appeal against the previous decision of the Seventh Chamber of the Seville Court. three years’ imprisonment and three years’ probation after serving that sentencereparation with mitigation of harm from three sexual misconduct offenses.

According to the court’s initial conviction, one weekend in May 2017, Álvaro DT, who came of age, was in Mairena del Aljarafe, where a young woman, then about 27 years old, was “at home with a group of men”, “taking advantage of her parents’ absence to have a barbecue. and even where they’ll meet for the night”.

“Sleep time”

“When it came time for bed, where they were divided between the sofa and the mattresses, Álvaro slept on a sofa with the aforementioned young woman. “and taking advantage of the fact that he had fallen asleep, he put his hand under his shirt and grabbed his chest, which caused the girl to wake up and slap him”, because “minutes later, he pretended to be asleep, just like in the previous episode, he tried to put his hand inside his pants What she was wearing could not reach the genital area, because she pushed her hand again, got up and left to sleep in a separate place”.

In addition, the sentence declares that another young woman from Palomares del Río was proved “on an unspecified date, in the summer of 2017, on the occasion of a friends gathering.” her friends had also met to spend the afternoon and sleep, taking advantage of the fact that she had slept on a mattress spread across the living room of the house,” said the young woman.when he fell asleep, he put one hand under his shirt and started to caress his chest.“before that,” he awoke, and only managed to protect himself by curling up and as far away from his friend as possible, albeit without getting out of bed.

third case

Also in the controversial sentence, “On 13 October 2017, at an unspecified early hour, it was proved that the defendant was at the home of a young man who was his “friend at the time” in a house in Mairena del Aljarafe, along with other men, after drinking with friends from college and at a certain There was also a “27-year-old girl” who came to this address late at night in a state of intoxication.

“Álvaro finally shared a rolling bed” and “at a certain moment, taking advantage of the sleep preferred by the girl’s alcohol intake, he inserted his fingers into her vagina. It causes her to wake up, slap her, and roll over in her bed, causing her to leave,” declared the first sentence of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to be proven.

In his appeal to the court against that conviction, the accused “an error in the assessment of evidence” that he committed the acts “while awake”, by proposing “as circumstantial documentary and expert evidence on the pathology of sexual sleepwalking”; Although TSJA claims that the three victims overlap in declaring that “the suspect did not sleep, but rather pretended to be asleep, pretending to be asleep to hide his racy intent.”

“No medical evidence”

Similarly, the TSJA states that the Court itself ” The absence of any medical evidence to support the alleged sleep disorder also points very sharply to extreme coincidences. that is, where young people of both sexes vaguely shared a bed because of the bed limitation, the defendant slept with a girl in all cases and each time experienced the alleged episode of sexsomnia”.

Faced with this, the defendant stressed in his appeal that he would have stayed “if a neurological study had been accepted and conducted in the second case” to which he intended to contribute.exempt from criminal liabilityfor admitting that he himself suffered from sexual sleepwalking”.

However, the Supreme Court upheld the TSJA’s decision that “evidence is properly inadmissible in the second instance as it may be asserted in the defense report on the one hand; and, on the other hand, the study did not objectify the pathology, so the test lacks relevant evidential potential relative to the factual exaggeration object of the procedure”.

“As a result, the rejected evidence is neither necessary nor indispensable, nor procedural admissible,” the court said. The Supreme Court therefore decides that “there is no room for admissibility” of the appeal.