The regional prosecutor’s office initially sought prison terms of up to four years for the defendant and up to three years for the opposing party in a case tied to an alleged assault that followed a heated dispute. The court in Valencia County subsequently sentenced the victim’s emotional partner to six months in prison after a confrontation between the two men, noting that the aggressor required surgery for a fractured left bicep. The decision raised questions about the balance between self-defense and the continuation of violence in intimate-partner settings. This brief, fact-filled summary reflects the reasoning published in the Valencia court records and later reviewed by the High Court of Justice under appeal.
The High Court of Justice of the Commonwealth of Valencia affirmed the acquittal of the convicted individual on wounds, accepting a defense appeal led by attorney Antonio Martín García. The court recognized a self-defense exemption, noting that the defendant acted in the face of imminent danger to a woman and that the intervention was aimed at preventing further harm. The sentence described the intervention as reasonable under the circumstances, arguing that it prevented ongoing violence against the partner and their child as the assailant was leaving the scene. In the court’s view, the legal framework allowed a separate, protective action when real danger to a partner was apparent.
The judgment characterized the confrontation as a mere struggle and found the defendant’s conduct to be rational given the circumstances. The events trace back to the afternoon of November 2, 2017, in the town of Aldaia. On that day, the injured party had gone to a school to collect his two children and encountered resistance tied to a prior visit violation. Earlier, the individual had been convicted of gender-based violence, injuries, and domestic abuse in connection with disputes with his former partner, a conviction handed down by the 16th Assize Court of Valencia in October 2019. The case then moved to a sequence of tensions culminating in a renewed escalation when the former partner returned home at high speed and allegedly displayed continued violent behavior toward both the ex-wife and the former mother-in-law, despite attempts to de-escalate the situation. According to the court’s findings, these actions were evidence of a pattern the parties had experienced in previous episodes of conflict.
According to the TSJCV’s assessment, the defendant was acquitted of causing wounds after observing the events from a distance. She then went downstairs to the street to protect her partner, believing that the abuser posed a risk based on earlier incidents involving the same ex-partner. The court noted that her involvement was intended to prevent further harm rather than to escalate the conflict. The agency explained that the protective act was aimed at preventing a repeat pattern of abuse from the former partner toward the couple.
At the time, a brief struggle ensued between the two men, drawing in a passerby who intervened and ended the fight. The decision stated that the confrontation lasted only a short period and that there was no clear evidence of sustained, targeted violence or a significant exchange of blows beyond the friction created by the struggle itself. The consequences of the altercation included a bleeding nose for the now-acquitted man, which did not require medical attention and did not lead to compensation. The opposing party sustained injuries such as neck bruising, a bruise on the lower right limb, and a bruise on the left arm. Later, a torn biceps muscle required medical and surgical treatment, with a recovery period reported at 383 days.
In financial terms, the Public Prosecutor initially sought compensation of 35,990 euros, but the amount cited by the prosecution’s broader claim reached 117,000 euros. The court acknowledged a causal link between the events and the injuries but emphasized the relative disproportionality between the short-lived struggle and its resulting consequences. This evaluation led to a conclusion that the larger claim did not align with the actual impact of the episode.
The court ultimately framed the events as a brief, intense moment rather than a prolonged assault. The defendant’s conduct was seen as a rational effort to separate the injured party from the partner, rooted in concerns about prior behavior in other situations. Consequently, the court acquitted the defendant and released him from liability while noting the absence of a direct, ongoing threat at the time of the verdict. The ruling reflects a nuanced view of self-defense in domestic contexts and underscores the tension between immediate protective action and the legal thresholds for criminal responsibility.