Fact patterns established years earlier show a marriage strained by escalating conflicts, with the husband described in court records as exhibiting a controlling, macho posture. He issued a violent threat to his wife, saying if she brought up the topic again, he would kill her and insultingly labeled her as an asshole. This chilling remark was documented as part of the domestic dispute that unfolded within their home and later emerged in a formal legal setting.
During the proceedings, the woman testified about the moment the threat was made and later recounted the events to authorities. The case proceeded through the criminal court system in Cartagena, culminating in a 2021 judgment. The man, then 80 years old, was found to be the author of a threat crime and received a sentence of seven months in prison. He was also prohibited from approaching within 300 meters of his wife for a period of one year and seven months and was ordered to cover all legal costs, including private prosecution expenses.
frequent fights
The man explained in court that the relationship had become tense, with ongoing communication problems and increasingly heated discussions. He described a day of heightened conflict, mentioning his trip from England earlier in the week and his perception that the home door was closed rather than left open. He also noted practical irritants, such as grocery shopping and a long day that involved bringing home four liters of water, and he cited gout as part of his explanation for the tension that day.
The woman testified that she kept a suction tube at home for self-defense in case she faced an attack. She asserted that the threats intensified after she returned from England and that the husband made it clear through intimidation and harsh language that he could cause harm with little provocation. She described feeling targeted and unsafe, and she explained that her actions toward self-protection were a direct response to the danger she perceived in the relationship.
They reject your appeal
On appeal, the convict argued that there was no macho domination or controlling context to his behavior. His defense introduced expert assessments and testimony from legal medical professionals, asserting that there was no pattern of physical or mental abuse in the couple, and noting differences in language and culture due to their different nationalities. The defense contended that the conduct did not constitute coercive control and that the relationship lacked the elements of violence needed to sustain the original verdict.
The County Court, however, upheld the sentence. It rejected the appeal on the basis that a person who grows weary or frustrated by repetitive behavior may experience verbal bursts that appear explosive but do not necessarily amount to a threat. The court underscored that the line between heated argument and criminal threat is defined by specific actions and intent, and in this case the established facts supported the original ruling. The decision reflected a careful consideration of both the emotional dynamics at play and the legal standards for threats and coercive conduct in a domestic context.