The Supreme Court rejected a key argument in a murder case and upheld a sentence of seventeen and a half years. The conviction was for murder by treason after the defendant killed his wife’s lover when he discovered them together in bed. The ruling confirms the Tarragona Provincial Court’s verdict and its affirmation by the Supreme Court of Justice of Catalonia.
The decision, as reported by the regional press, notes that the Tarragona court established a deteriorating relationship between the defendant and his wife, with whom he had three children. The couple separated in the summer of 2020 after she began a new relationship with a friend of the husband. On August 26, they both remained at a chalet owned by the husband’s father in Vila-Seca, in the Tarragona region.
On the day in question, the defendant parked a Porsche Panamera near the chalet. He then went into town, claiming to have seen his wife and her companion together at home. He bought two large fishing knives and latex gloves. At dawn he climbed over the fence of the property, entered the house, removed the guards on the blades, and, wearing gloves, went to the bedroom where the two were lying.
He approached them and began stabbing, an attack that left the man unable to rise and soon dead, while the woman attempted to defend herself and then lay still as the violence unfolded. After neighbors alerted the police by reporting the fence jumper, officers arrived at the scene and found the perpetrator still inside. The woman’s husband removed his shirt and gloves when asked about entry rights, insisting that officers needed a warrant to enter, while the officers attended to the body and pursued the investigation.
The defense argued that mitigating circumstances should apply, describing the act as a result of stubbornness, excess passion, or emotional turmoil. They claimed the crime stemmed from a serious breach of trust within the marriage, highlighting fidelity’s cultural importance within the Roma community and arguing that such norms could influence how an emotional conflict might unfold. They contended that the defendant’s actions were a passionate reaction to an infidelity that caused deep emotional distress and a sense of honor wounded by the affair.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected these arguments as insufficient to excuse the violent crime. It stated that reducing a sentence for domestic violence based on serious emotional strain is difficult to justify within the legal framework. The court emphasized the need for a clear link between the incentive and the punitive measure, noting that time can rationalize a rash state, which would otherwise risk undermining justice. In this case, that mitigating approach was not accepted, and the sentence remained intact.
According to the record, the defendant had traveled to purchase the weapon and gloves and waited until the evening to carry out the attack. He did not offer a credible confession, maintaining that his statements only arose after the body was discovered and his wife could recount the sequence of events. The court did not find a convincing basis to reduce punishment based on the claimed emotional state or cultural justifications and proceeded with the established penalty.
In sum, the case illustrates how courts assess domestic violence, jealousy, and perceived betrayals within a family context when a homicide is involved. It highlights the balance between recognizing powerful emotional responses and upholding legal standards that prevent diminished accountability in violent crimes. The ruling reinforces the principle that mitigation must be firmly grounded in legally permissible criteria rather than cultural narratives or personal justifications. The decision stands as a clarified instance of judicial consistency in handling severe offenses within intimate relationships. Source attribution: EL PERIÓDICO, Prensa Ibérica group.