Valencia Case: Death Investigation Linked to Trazodone Overdose

No time to read?
Get a summary

Valencia Case: Death Investigation Trazodone Overdose Linked to Suspected Negligence

Juan Carlos Martínez Simarro, 51, was found dead at his home in Xirivella, Valencia, on March 11, 2018. Initial assessments noted no external signs of violence, no evident alcohol abuse, and a medical history that included hypertension and diabetes. At first, these factors pointed toward a natural death. Yet, autopsy findings from the Valencia Institute of Forensic Medicine (IML) and the Barcelona National Institute of Toxicology revealed markedly elevated trazodone levels in the deceased’s blood, exceeding three times the maximum therapeutic dose. This raised the possibility that the death could be linked to a toxic drug influence rather than a natural cause (IML and toxicology report cited).

Investigations coordinated by the Mislata No. 1 Civil Court of First Instance subsequently brought the victim’s widow to trial on charges of voluntary homicide. Prosecutors allege that she administered trazodone to her husband without a prescription or medical supervision, describing the act as conducted with evident carelessness and without considering the patient’s deteriorating condition. The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office is seeking four years of imprisonment for the defendants (official filing and proceedings cited).

The coroner from the IML testified at a Valencia criminal court hearing that trazodone concentration in the decedent’s blood reached 3.72 mg/L, a level three times above what is considered non-toxic. A comparison notes that consuming roughly twelve tablets could pose a toxicity risk. According to the testimony, the defendant continued giving a portion of the drug each night before sleep, even after the investigation began, raising questions about the intent and the potential for harm (IML coroner testimony noted in court).

The toxicology finding and its implications

The toxicology report documented trazodone levels three times higher than the maximum recommended dose. The defense contends that there is no proven link between the husband’s death and the antidepressant usage. A chemistry expert presented by the defense described the dose as toxic but not lethal, and proposed alternative explanations such as a possible suicide or overdose, given the husband’s difficulty sleeping and the absence of other conclusive evidence (defense expert testimony recorded at the oral hearing).

One central issue in the proceedings concerns access to the medications. The question is whether the husband could obtain the drug himself at night or if the defendant controlled access. While the defendant initially stated that the husband would not be able to reach the medication alone, she later claimed that he could reach a dresser in the bedroom near his bed, suggesting access was possible and highlighting the tension around alleged responsibility (testimony recounted in court).

Regarding the possibility of the husband choosing self-harm, the defendant explained that she never expressed any intent that he end his life. She acknowledged that alcohol problems had intensified after a job loss in September 2016. She suggested that without alcohol, the husband might become aggressive, depressed, and bedridden, and that he did not receive a pension, which may have influenced dynamics at home (defense statements and testimony summarized for the court).

Admissions and prescribing history

The defendant admitted starting the medication regime in October 2017, claiming the drug helped her husband sleep better and that his rest improved under treatment. She also admitted that she did not consult a medical professional about the use of trazodone, noting that her husband had used the same antidepressant previously. A physician who previously prescribed a similar antidepressant to the same patient in 2008 described modifying the treatment in 2016 because the patient complained about insufficient rest, rather than due to adverse effects (medical records referenced in testimony).

From the outset, authorities considered whether any financial motive could be connected to the death. Police investigations reportedly found no link to life insurance or other policies that would benefit the defendant from her husband’s death (police findings cited in the case file).

Overall, the case centers on whether the widow’s access to the medication and the absence of medical supervision were decisive factors in Juan Carlos Martínez Simarro’s death, or whether other complex health factors contributed to the tragedy. The trial is ongoing as the court weighs the evidence and arguments presented by both sides (case notes and courtroom proceedings cited).

No time to read?
Get a summary
Previous Article

Poland, Bulgaria, and the Wider Refugee Situation in Europe

Next Article

Former Deputy Minister Convicted in Krasnodar Corruption Case