Man found guilty of killing burglar who broke into his home in Inca

PalmThe jury has found the defendant guilty of homicide for fatally stabbing an intruder who broke into his property to steal marijuana plants in Inca in September 2020. The three other men who were with the deceased also received a guilty verdict for attempted robbery.

The Provincial Court held the reading of the verdict this Friday, reached by the nine members of the jury, who took two days to reach their decision. Regarding the first man, the jury found it proven that during a confrontation he stabbed the intruder multiple times with the intention of killing him and rejected his claim of self-defense.

"He could have left, locked himself inside to protect himself and his family, and then called the police. There was no need for an attack, which was also very violent, as the autopsy shows," they stated.

They did admit that he may have acted out of paralyzing fear and asked that his confession to the Civil Guard be taken into account. "We believe that, initially, he should have taken refuge, but by not doing so and confronting a stranger after seeing him hiding behind a tree at dusk, without knowing his exact intentions, a feeling of fear could have arisen that affected his decision-making and actions."

The jury, on the other hand, did not consider it proven that the perpetrator acted unexpectedly or from behind, nor that there was a second stabbing outside the property. For the jury, in any case, only the convicted man could have been the perpetrator of the stabbings, and the attack was so serious "that there is no other possibility than that it resulted in the victim's death."

Convicted of attempted robbery

Regarding the assailants, the jury unanimously concluded that they devised a plan, each with an assigned role, to seize the marijuana plants. They stated that "there was organization, and they had planned it by common agreement." The nine jurors rejected the argument that drug use should be considered a mitigating factor for the thieves. They pointed out that, despite being regular users, they were not under the influence of drugs at the time of the events, nor could it be proven, as claimed, that they had consumed hard drugs. "Their judgment was not impaired," they stated. Furthermore, the jury ruled against the possibility of requesting a pardon. Following the verdict, the prosecutor reduced the requested sentence for the man convicted of homicide from 15 years to six years, based on the mitigating circumstances of fear and confession presented by the jury. Regarding the assailants, he requests that they be sentenced to terms ranging from one year and one day to one year and five months.