Post by account_disabled on Feb 15, 2024 8:31:06 GMT
However the sentence recognizes that the witness, the aunt of the minor's mother, is the only person who has seen the accused attack the minor , as she stated that she pushed him against the sofa, that he hit him on the head, that he hit him "Bonlo", who has seen him kick him and who was able to observe the bruises that were reflected in the medical report, describing how on the minor's back you could even see the bruise and the mark of a hand, as appears in one of the Photographs. Despite this, the ruling does not attribute any evidentiary relevance to his statement due to the fact that "it does not specify the date and it is unknown whether said episode is related to the photograph incorporated into the proceedings" , despite the fact that he was not asked. about it in court since it appears in his statement at the investigative headquarters that this episode occurred a month before the filing of the complaint.
Likewise, the sentence also completely omits the Netherlands Email List statement of another witness, who testified at trial that she witnessed how the accused slapped the minor in the face on the day of her daughter's communion.
Likewise, the Provincial Court of Seville does not understand how it is possible that the appealed sentence concludes that it has not been proven that the accused ridiculed the minor in front of third parties, ordering him on one occasion to pick up a dog's excrement from the ground with his hand , when he recognizes in the same sentence that a neighbor states that one day he "ordered him to pick up shit from the floor" and that, when he did not obey him, he looked at him seriously and the boy was going to obey him if it had not been for the fact that he was detained, without giving an explanation why this statement does not give credibility.
For all the above and without reviewing or making further considerations about the assessment of this and the remaining personal evidence carried out in the lower court ruling, nor about the legal classification that the facts would deserve, the Court has ruled that the omission in the assessment of the evidence of the exposed witnesses and the contradictions revealed between the body of the motivation and the statement of proven facts, are sufficient to consider that their reasoning is erroneous because it is illogical and because it is devoid of sufficient rationality and congruence.
Consequently, the sentence handed down by the Criminal Court No. 15 of Seville has been annulled, returning the proceedings to the Court of origin for a new trial to be held, which must be carried out by a judge other than the one who held the trial in the first instance.
Likewise, the sentence also completely omits the Netherlands Email List statement of another witness, who testified at trial that she witnessed how the accused slapped the minor in the face on the day of her daughter's communion.
Likewise, the Provincial Court of Seville does not understand how it is possible that the appealed sentence concludes that it has not been proven that the accused ridiculed the minor in front of third parties, ordering him on one occasion to pick up a dog's excrement from the ground with his hand , when he recognizes in the same sentence that a neighbor states that one day he "ordered him to pick up shit from the floor" and that, when he did not obey him, he looked at him seriously and the boy was going to obey him if it had not been for the fact that he was detained, without giving an explanation why this statement does not give credibility.
For all the above and without reviewing or making further considerations about the assessment of this and the remaining personal evidence carried out in the lower court ruling, nor about the legal classification that the facts would deserve, the Court has ruled that the omission in the assessment of the evidence of the exposed witnesses and the contradictions revealed between the body of the motivation and the statement of proven facts, are sufficient to consider that their reasoning is erroneous because it is illogical and because it is devoid of sufficient rationality and congruence.
Consequently, the sentence handed down by the Criminal Court No. 15 of Seville has been annulled, returning the proceedings to the Court of origin for a new trial to be held, which must be carried out by a judge other than the one who held the trial in the first instance.