In Cantabria, the Supreme Court Law and Criminal Division has confirmed the fifteen-year sentence handed down to Carmen Merino. She was found guilty in a December trial for fatally killing her partner in 2019 in Castro Urdiales, a crime that involved disposing of the entire body except the skull and later presenting the skull to a friend.
The judgment, which remains subject to appeal, also rejects the defense argument seeking acquittal on several grounds, including the claim that the cause of death could not be established beyond doubt. The court maintains that the evidence supports a finding of homicide, and the defense’s view on the cause of death was addressed as part of the trial record.
Merino has been held at El Dueso prison since her arrest in 2019. She was convicted of murdering her 67-year-old partner from Biscay with the stated aim of financially exploiting his assets and money, a motive described by the court as an intent to act as a universal heir through wrongful means.
The sentence, as confirmed by the TSJC, details that Merino discarded the body in a trash or disposal setting and delivered the skull to a friend inside a box, under the false pretense that it contained sex toys. The package was opened months later, revealing the disturbing truth. During the open hearing on March 14, the court heard the defense’s arguments and concluded that the right to presumption of innocence had not been violated by the proceedings or the verdict.
The chamber rejected the defense’s claim that the verdict was wrongful, arbitrary, or ungrounded because forensic evidence could not demonstrate the exact cause of death. Merino’s counsel had argued that the death might not have been violent in nature, urging the court to consider alternative explanations.
The panel observed that all available indicators consistently point toward a violent death, and this conclusion has a stronger evidentiary basis than the alternative hypothesis proposed on appeal. The court noted that the kind of manipulation and concealment described would be unlikely in a case of natural death, and the actions taken to dispose of the torso, expose it to heat, and remove key parts were not typical of non-homicidal death scenarios. Forensic and circumstantial elements, including the handling of electronic devices and the concealment measures, were cited as part of the evidentiary framework supporting the homicide conclusion.
While disagreeing with aspects of the defense’s view on whether the jury’s intent or approach to the facts shifted during the process, the chamber stated that the outcome remained logically consistent and properly reasoned. The defense had also challenged the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence tying Merino directly to the death of the victim.
The court affirmed that the jury’s decision was clear and grounded in a coherent analysis of the available evidence. It emphasized that the evaluation of the evidence did not depart from logical reasoning, experiential understanding, or established scientific knowledge. The record contained numerous indicators that, when combined, strongly implicated Merino as the person connected to the victim’s death.
On the question of whether Merino could be considered an accomplice rather than the principal offender, the court addressed the defense’s latest arguments during the final day of the hearing. It held that the theory of a secondary or lesser participation did not fit the proven facts. The court reasoned that Merino was engaged in planning, orchestrating, and carrying out the actions that led to the death, alone or with another person, and that the punishment should reflect the central role attributed to her, regardless of potential involvement by others.