A man has been sentenced to a year in prison for entering his ex-partner's home without her consent. In addition, the presiding judge of the jury who tried the accused last October has imposed a ban on him from communicating with and approaching the woman for two years and the payment of 3,000 euros in compensation.
In the sentence, recently notified and against which there is an appeal before the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Cantabria, the judge accepts the jury's verdict and considers the defendant the author of a crime of breaking and entering.
According to the proven facts collected in the judicial resolution, they occurred in the summer of 2020 when the defendant entered the home of the person who had been his partner for ten years and with whom he had broken up months before.
The man entered the home "without knowledge or consent" on the part of its resident, "remaining there for an indeterminate period of time, despite being aware that he lacked any authorization to do so."
After the trial, the jury unanimously handed down a guilty verdict that the presiding judge now endorses based on the "complete and rich" list of evidence presented at the hearing.
Thus, the accused's acknowledgment that he entered the home and also the testimonies given and documents provided have been taken into account. In this sense, the jury focused on a recording in which the accused is seen entering the house. He himself alleged that he had entered the house out of fear that they had been robbed.
In his defense, the now convicted man stated that he entered because he feared that his ex-partner's home had been robbed when he saw that the blinds were not as she left them.
But the magistrate points out that "it is inadmissible to assume that once the romantic relationship is broken" the accused, "without prior notice, enters her habitual residence to verify that it has not been robbed."
"The minimum logic requires that before entering someone else's home, even with the excuse alleged by the accused, one should be notified, something that the accused did not even attempt at any time," he adds.
For all these reasons, he considers that the conclusion reached by the jury that the accused accessed his ex-partner's home without authorization, knowledge or consent "is fully supported."
