Defense appeals Moisés Martínez's sentence, citing judicial error

The legal battle surrounding Moisés Martínez's conviction continues as his defense team lodges an appeal against the 12-year sentence for the homicide of his father. The core of the defense's argument rests on the assertion that Judge María Noel Odriozola erred in her interpretation of Article 36 of the Penal Code, which pertains to circumstances mitigating culpability, such as acting under intense emotional distress or in a situation akin to self-defense against prolonged abuse.

The defense contends that the judge imposed requirements not present in the article itself, specifically demanding proof of 'imminent' danger, cohabitation, and recent complaints. They argue that these are stipulations for legitimate self-defense, not for the application of Article 36, suggesting a fundamental confusion of legal concepts in the original ruling. The defense maintains that the conditions for Article 36—namely, the long-standing violence and the intense emotional state of the accused—were indeed met and recognized within the sentence itself.

“

For the defense of Moisés, there was an erroneous interpretation of Article 36, since when analyzing the necessary conditions for its application, Judge María Noel Odriozola demanded conditions that the article does not demand: that the danger be 'imminent', that the victim and perpetrator lived together and that there were recent complaints.

A significant point of contention is the interpretation of the article's clause requiring that the perpetrator, or others, must have sought protection without effective response. The prosecution argued that the State had responded when a sister reported the father, leading to a conviction. However, the defense counters that this intervention was insufficient and the violence persisted, necessitating a review in light of international norms protecting individuals from violence and gender-based laws.

Furthermore, the defense highlights that the sentencing judgment failed to reference the Law on Violence Against Women, under which Article 36 was modified. They also point out that international conventions on human rights were not adequately considered, despite it being within the judge's purview. The appeal seeks either an acquittal based on the proper application of Article 36 or, alternatively, a conviction for simple homicide, which carries a lesser sentence, arguing that the 'aggravated' nature of the homicide was incorrectly applied.

“

The Fiscalía sustained during the trial that there had been a response from the State since, when one of the sisters denounced her father, he was convicted. But Rey argued that that state intervention was deficient and after that the violence continued.