Madrid resident sentenced to eleven years in prison for attempting to beat and strangle flatmate to death

The events took place on 20 February 2024, when the two were alone in the home they had been sharing since December 2023. Their relationship had deteriorated due to various conflicts, although previous arguments had remained purely verbal, so the victim did not expect a physical assault.

The court found it proven that the defendant had launched a surprise attack, taking advantage of his physical superiority to repeatedly strike the woman with his fists and feet, particularly on the head, neck and chest. The assault continued when the victim was already lying on the ground, unconscious or semi-conscious and effectively unable to defend herself.

During the attack, Jesús L. M. gripped her tightly around the neck while punching her in the face with his other hand. The victim was left lying by the door of the flat, her face disfigured, with a sunken area on her forehead, injuries to her neck, bleeding and severe breathing difficulties.

The court concluded that, without medical assistance, the injuries would have caused the woman's death. It therefore considers it proven that the defendant acted with the intention to kill or, at the very least, in the belief that her death was likely to result.

The victim suffered a severe head injury, a subarachnoid haemorrhage, cervical trauma affecting the carotid and vertebral arteries, multiple rib fractures, a pneumothorax, a lumbar vertebral fracture and an intestinal perforation, among other injuries.

She required several surgical procedures, medication and rehabilitation over a period of 146 days. The after-effects are permanent and the ruling notes severe neurological and cognitive damage.

The victim now suffers from a very severe loss of quality of life, as she is completely dependent for basic activities, has difficulties with speech and swallowing and has severely limited mobility. She has an 85 per cent disability.

One of the key issues the court examined was whether the defendant had acted with the intention to kill, as the prosecution contended, or whether he had merely intended to cause injury, as his defence team argued.

The ruling notes that the intent to kill may be established either through direct intent or through conditional intent and that the analysis must take into account the intensity and repetition of the blows, the parts of the body targeted, the means employed and the defendant's conduct before and after the events.

The court considers the repeated blows, the extreme violence used, the fact that he continued to assault when the victim was already unable to defend herself and, in particular, the fact that he held her by the neck while continuing to strike her to be particularly significant.

The court states that strangulation is a form of assault objectively capable of causing death and that the severity of the injuries demonstrates the extreme violence of the attack.

The ruling also recognises the element of malice aforethought, finding that the defendant acted by surprise and took advantage of the fact that the two of them were alone in the flat.

Furthermore, the ruling holds that the convicted man's physical superiority and the fact that the assault continued even after the woman was no longer able to defend herself highlighted the victim's defencelessness.

The court dismissed the claim that the woman had physically assaulted the accused before the attack and downplayed the alleged threat with a knife raised by the defence. It also rejected the arguments that there was a mental impairment with criminal relevance or a mitigating circumstance of sudden passion or blind rage.

Following the assault, the defendant contacted a friend and lawyer and subsequently called the 112 emergency service to request an ambulance. When the National Police arrived, he admitted to having carried out the assault and cooperated with the officers.

The court has imposed a total disqualification for the duration of the sentence, a ban on approaching the victim within 500 metres or communicating with her for 12 years, as well as probation on terms to be determined during the enforcement of the sentence.

He will not be eligible for release until he has served half his sentence. He also has to pay the legal costs.

Under civil liability, he must pay the victim compensation of 352,750 euros, from which the 5,000 euros he had already set aside will be deducted.

Review the latest crime and judicial news reports