The lawyer in charge of the defense of (MJNB), convicted of murdering and beheading another man (CRM) in Huelva and whose head walked down the street on October 31, 22, as well as the lawyer for the private prosecution of the family of the deceased, will appeal to the Superior Court of Justice (TSJA) the sentence of the Provincial Court that sentences this person to 21 years and five months in prison for the crimes of murder and desecration of a corpse, as they have indicated to Europa Press.
Thus, the defense lawyer, Elías Carrillo, has indicated that he has announced that he will file an appeal before the TSJA that will focus on the “violation of the principle of presumption of innocence” and on an “assessment error” in evidence , in reference to the “absence of traces” of his client on the gas heater with which he allegedly hit him or on the knife which he used to slit the victim’s throat.
In this sense, the lawyer has indicated that “the presence of “traces” on the element studied as a weapon “has not been proven”, something that he considers “fundamental” to consider the crime of murder, so with the appeal he will try to Finally, the crime of homicide is accepted, as requested during the trial held between October 24 and 26 in Huelva with a popular jury.
erase the traces
At this point, he explained that in the sentence “it is indicated that he could have erased them” or that he could have used “a cloth or something to avoid fingerprinting” but that this point “has to be proven” because “it is not proven” and ” the law must be proven”, while adding that “with the scientific advances that exist, if I had cleaned an object there would be remains, at least, of having used a cleaning product«.
For this reason, it has outlined that “it is not said that this person has not done anything” but “not of what has been described”, so that with the appeal it will try to “transform the murder into homicide, not that it goes unpunished”. .
For his part, the attorney for the private prosecution on behalf of the victim’s family, Marcos Garcia Montes, He has explained that he has also announced that they will present an appeal “which is being finalized” and will be ready in a few days.
In this way, in the appeal, the prosecution will state that the circumstance of breach of trust -being the condemned friend of the victim- “cannot be included in the aggravating circumstance of treachery”, but rather “is independent”, thus as they consider that “Yes, there is a crime against moral integrity” something that “cannot be considered as part of the crime of murder either.”
At this point, García Montes has explained that adding this would mean “an increase in sentence” but “between one and three more years”, which “in the face of serving the sentence is not of great importance”, while noting that it is requested for “legal legitimacy”.
Both parties plan to deliver the brief of their appeals over the next few days, so that the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia admits them for processing for the review of the sentence.
After the guilty verdict issued by a popular jury, the Court sentenced the defendant to 21 years in prison for a crime of murder and five months in prison for a crime of desecration of a corpse.
In addition, as civil liability, he must compensate his five brothers and a niece with a total of 25, euros for the moral damage caused. Likewise, it acquits him of crimes against physical and moral integrity and robbery with violence for which he was also tried.
In the trial, the Prosecutor’s Office requested for the defendant 24 years in jail for the crime of murder and five months in prison for the crime of desecration of a corpse, while the private prosecution brought by the victim’s family claimed 25 years for the first crime; five months in prison for the second; five years in prison for a crime of robbery and another two years in prison for a crime against physical and moral integrity. For its part, the defense requested the crime of homicide.
Facts considered proven
In its verdict, the jury considered it proven that, at unspecified hours on the afternoon of October 29, 22, the convicted person went to the victim’s home, so that, between 1: p.m. that day and 8: a.m., hours the following day, and while the deceased was in the kitchen crouching in front of the refrigerator, the defendant, who was behind him, “with the intention of causing his death, he grabbed with both hands a metallic skeleton of a heater weighing approximately 1.1 kilos that was on the kitchen floor, raised it and hit it at least twice in the head«.
The assaulted man suffered “various injuries and died almost immediately in said time slot“, according to the jury’s verdict, which also saw evidence that, after the victim died, the convicted person “moved his body to the room at the back of the house wrapped in a curtain and he completely severed his head using a 2-centimetre knife with a blade.
After carrying out these events, the defendant left the house taking the keys to the house, to which he returned between 5: and 9: on October 3.
Once there, “he consumed an undetermined amount of beer and toxic drugs, narcotics or psychotropic substances, cleaned the kitchen and bathroom, trying to eliminate any traces or vestiges that could implicate him in the death” of his friend, and formed a bundle with the skeleton of the heater that he used to “end his life” the knife “that he used to decapitate him” and several blood-stained objects, the sentence states.
Next, the condemned man “put the deceased’s head in a plastic bag and went to a certain square in Huelva, where he left the bag with the victim’s head among the branches of a tree and sat on the bench closest to the tree, going home minutes later and leaving the bag on the tree.
Likewise, it considers proven that the defendant “showed his head to other people” and he fled through different streets of the Huelva capital, being followed in his flight by two people who managed to record him with a mobile phone and inform the Police that he had taken refuge in his home. In fleeing from him, the defendant threw the bag with the victim’s head next to a Pius XII garbage container.
Likewise, the jury considered it proven that, by inflicting the injuries “that ultimately caused his death”, the defendant “took advantage of the fact that the deceased was with his back to him and crouched down, using a notably forceful object to hit him on the head.” » which, impacting in such an area, was likely to cause “serious harm” to the victimmanaging with all this “to commit these acts in a way that effectively prevented any effective defensive reaction on the part of the victim.”
In addition, it considered proven the circumstance of the victim’s lack of foresight that he could be attacked “given the existing friendly relationship between the two”, according to the sentence.
Regarding the treachery, the sentence highlights that “there is not the slightest hint of doubt or uncertainty that the intention” of the defendant “was to end the life” of his friend and shows that “it is not only violence and location of the hitting zone, but also the repetition of the blows», which determines “intent to seek lethal outcome”for which it emphasizes that the blows were delivered “with a dangerous and blunt object and with the deceased with his back to the defendant and crouching.”