The Supreme Court has confirmed the sentence to 14 years in prison for a 73-year-old man who stabbed to death his 75-year-old wife in the Madrid town of Fuenlabrada.
The events occurred at midnight on February 26, 2020 when the convicted man got into an argument with his wife in the living room of the family home located at number 11 Miguel de Unamuno street.
At one point, the man grabbed a kitchen knife and pounced on the woman “with the intention of stabbing her.” She tried to escape the attack, but her husband “with the purpose of ending her life” stabbed her three times in the thorax and abdomen, penetrating two of the stab wounds in the thoracic and abdominal cavities with perforation of the liver, pericardium and diaphragm.
After that, the woman left her home asking for help. But the man took her knife again, causing serious injuries to her abdomen, chest and neck. After hearing the cries for help, her neighbors found her on the landing of the stairs bleeding profusely.
Upon the arrival of the toilets, he had already entered cardiorespiratory arrest, which they managed to reverse. However, when she was already in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, she suffered a cardiac arrest again, losing her life.
The Court of Madrid imposed 14 years in prison for a crime of homicide with the aggravating circumstances of kinship and abuse of superiority plus compensation of 56,000 euros to the siblings of the victim, which the Superior Court of Justice later raised notably.
And now the Supreme Court endorses the conviction, limiting itself solely to withdrawing the obligation of the convicted person to pay the costs to the Community of Madrid, which acted as popular prosecution.
The Chamber says that its action “was not especially relevant because the classification of the facts was the same as that of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the private prosecution.”
“Public interests, defended by the prosecutor, and private interests, defended by the private prosecution, met the demands of the criminal action, the action of the popular prosecution not being particularly relevant to conform the inclusion in the procedural costs of the expenses corresponding to their procedural performance”, he explains.
