In Seville, a man’s appeal overturned at the Andalusian Supreme Court of Justice is denied by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a man who had been upheld by the Andalusian Superior Court of Justice (TSJA) and the Seville Provincial Court. The original sentence imposed three years in prison for sexual abuse involving three girls during gatherings where young people spent the night at a home, under the pretense of sleeping while an abuse occurred.
The TSJA’s decision, reported by Europa Press, confirms that the man’s challenge to the Seville Court’s seventh chamber ruling keeps intact a sentence of three years in prison and three years of probation after serving the sentence. The court also considered that there was a compensation plan for the harm caused by three sexual misconduct offenses.
According to the court’s initial conviction, one weekend in May 2017, Álvaro DT, who was of legal age, was in Mairena del Aljarafe where a young woman, then about 27 years old, hosted a gathering with a group of men. The woman’s parents were away, and the group used the moment to hold a barbecue that extended into the night.
The occurrence described as “sleep time”
At bedtime, attendees divided between the sofa and the mattresses. Álvaro slept on a sofa with the young woman mentioned. When he fell asleep, he reportedly touched her chest under her shirt, waking her. She slapped him, and minutes later, he feigned sleep again. He attempted to touch her again while pretending to be asleep, though she pushed his hand away and moved to sleep in another area of the home.
There is also evidence from another young woman from Palomares del Río. On an unspecified date in the summer of 2017, during a casual gathering with friends, she slept on a mattress spread across the living room. When she fell asleep, one man touched her chest under her shirt. She awoke and, alarmed, tried to shield herself and moved away, though she did not change her sleeping location immediately.
The third case
The sentence also notes an October 13, 2017 incident in which the defendant, then accompanied by male friends after college hours and in the company of a 27-year-old woman who arrived late and intoxicated, was at a home in Mairena del Aljarafe. The legal record describes a shared sleeping space where several individuals were present and where the defendant and others were drinking with acquaintances from college.
According to the court, the defendant later shared a bed with the woman and, taking advantage of her intoxication and sleep, inserted his fingers into her vagina. She woke, slapped him, rolled away, and left the room. This sequence was presented as part of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ findings, establishing the facts as proven.
In the man’s appeal, he argued that the acts occurred while he was awake, arguing for the admission of circumstantial documentary and expert evidence related to the pathology of sexual sleepwalking. The TSJA, however, maintained that the three victims’ statements converge on the same point: the suspect did not sleep but pretended to sleep to conceal his intent.
Lack of medical evidence
The TSJA also highlighted that there was no medical evidence supporting a sleep disorder claim. The court noted that the alleged pattern involved multiple young people sharing a bed because of limited space, and that the defendant slept with a different girl in each case, with the supposed sleepwalking episodes occurring consistently. The defense argued that a neurological study could have been accepted and relied upon to claim exemption from criminal liability due to sleepwalking. The court rejected this, maintaining that the evidence could not be objectified or relied upon to alter the factual findings of the case.
The Supreme Court agreed with the TSJA, ruling that the contested evidence was inadmissible in the defense report and that the study failed to demonstrate a clear pathology with measurable evidential value relevant to the case. As a result, the evidence could not be deemed necessary, indispensable, or procedurally admissible, and the appeal did not meet the required standards for admissibility.
In sum, the Supreme Court affirmed the TSJA’s decision, concluding that there is no basis to admit the appeal and that the initial conviction remains intact.