Post by account_disabled on Mar 7, 2024 3:39:53 GMT -5
When the woman and her youngest son arrived, they were unable to gain access. They saw themselves “on the street and without their belongings.” In this way, according to the sentence, the defendant managed to leave the property empty .
Furthermore, on June 11, the tenant and her son were registered in said apartment and the tenant and her son were removed from the municipal register . After entering the home, she seized and made all the belongings of the tenant and her son her own. Among other belongings, in the home there was a laptop, a television, a camera, jewelry and baby belongings, as well as household items.
The tenant filed a complaint in the Guardia Court Fax Lists on June 8 and requested that the landlord hand over her belongings. On June 15, at the request of a social worker from the old town, the accused, in front of two Municipal Police officers, gave the tenant two suitcases with clothes and documents. However, she did not give him the rest of the belongings that were inside the property : photographs and documentation, clothes of the woman and her baby, the child's toys, jewelry and the baby's belongings, all of them with an expert value of more than 400 euros.
On July 16, the defendant's lawyer gave the victim's lawyer a baby changing table, a walker, a blanket for a chair, a bathtub, a bouncer to put on the door, a racket and an ironing board, property objects of the tenant and who were inside the home on June 7. The rest, according to the ruling, was not returned.
Due to these facts, last April the Second Section of the Court sentenced the accused to two years in prison for a crime of coercion and another two for a crime of aggravated theft. She also ordered him to pay two compensations, 6,000 euros for moral damages and 4,819 for the objects stolen and not recovered.
The defendant appealed to the TSJ. In its ruling, the Civil and Criminal Chamber examines the validity and sufficiency of the incriminating evidence on which the Court was based to determine the existence of a crime of coercion preventing the legitimate enjoyment of the home , after the accused had changed the lock. ; and secondly, a crime of aggravated theft, which placed the victim and her son in a serious economic situation after having seized all the objects and belongings that were inside the home.
After reviewing all the statements that were made in the trial, the Court concludes that “ the impediment to access to the home is duly accredited , not only by the statement of the complainant, but univocally by the rest of the testimonies that "They have been targeted, leaving the complainant dispossessed of everything that was inside."
Furthermore, on June 11, the tenant and her son were registered in said apartment and the tenant and her son were removed from the municipal register . After entering the home, she seized and made all the belongings of the tenant and her son her own. Among other belongings, in the home there was a laptop, a television, a camera, jewelry and baby belongings, as well as household items.
The tenant filed a complaint in the Guardia Court Fax Lists on June 8 and requested that the landlord hand over her belongings. On June 15, at the request of a social worker from the old town, the accused, in front of two Municipal Police officers, gave the tenant two suitcases with clothes and documents. However, she did not give him the rest of the belongings that were inside the property : photographs and documentation, clothes of the woman and her baby, the child's toys, jewelry and the baby's belongings, all of them with an expert value of more than 400 euros.
On July 16, the defendant's lawyer gave the victim's lawyer a baby changing table, a walker, a blanket for a chair, a bathtub, a bouncer to put on the door, a racket and an ironing board, property objects of the tenant and who were inside the home on June 7. The rest, according to the ruling, was not returned.
Due to these facts, last April the Second Section of the Court sentenced the accused to two years in prison for a crime of coercion and another two for a crime of aggravated theft. She also ordered him to pay two compensations, 6,000 euros for moral damages and 4,819 for the objects stolen and not recovered.
The defendant appealed to the TSJ. In its ruling, the Civil and Criminal Chamber examines the validity and sufficiency of the incriminating evidence on which the Court was based to determine the existence of a crime of coercion preventing the legitimate enjoyment of the home , after the accused had changed the lock. ; and secondly, a crime of aggravated theft, which placed the victim and her son in a serious economic situation after having seized all the objects and belongings that were inside the home.
After reviewing all the statements that were made in the trial, the Court concludes that “ the impediment to access to the home is duly accredited , not only by the statement of the complainant, but univocally by the rest of the testimonies that "They have been targeted, leaving the complainant dispossessed of everything that was inside."