"I can't say if it's true because I was very drunk." This is how the defendant accused of trying to kill his roommate in Arrecife, who was tried this Monday by the Sixth Section of the Provincial Court, began his statement. He has stated that he doesn't remember anything" of what happened, except that "he had consumed alcohol" and "pills." "I don't remember anything else," he insisted in his answers to the Public Prosecutor's questions.
According to the young man, of foreign nationality, he had only been living in the Altavista house where the events took place for "about five days" and "had no problems" with his roommates. However, he stated that he started drinking alcohol "at 4 in the afternoon" that day, which he combined "with trankimazin". "Then I don't remember anything," he said, after the prosecutor asked him if he had argued with his roommate in the early morning, if he had followed him through the building's entrance, and if he had repeatedly stabbed him in different parts of the body.
The defendant, who has been in pre-trial detention for a year and four months, has stated that since then he has been trying to remember what he has been "told" without success. "He had previously had head surgery and believes that it may have affected him," translated the interpreter who accompanied him in his statement. "I also can't imagine it because in my 32 years of life I had never stabbed anyone," added the defendant.
The only thing I.A. has stated he remembers is that the day after the events, which took place in the early morning of December 6, 2019, he woke up in the port of Arrecife and that his "head hurt a lot." Then, he pointed out that he called another roommate "to see what had happened" and that he told him that "his phone number was in the hands of the Police" and that "he should not return to the house," but he didn't tell him "anything" about what had happened.
Later, he stated that his phone "ran out of battery," that he stayed "until the next day" on the Arrecife dock, and that he then went "to Playa Blanca." "I never intended to cause his death," he said in his last word in the trial, in which he asked the court to see what happened "with a broad vision."
"Son of a bitch, I'm going to kill you"
For his part, the victim has related that everything started with an argument after the defendant asked him for "a cigarette" and he didn't give it to him. According to what he stated, at that moment both were in the living room of the house "drinking" with another roommate and the defendant began to utter "insults" against him.
After that, he stated that he left the house to go "outside to smoke" and that I.A. went "behind him" and hit him "with the knife" in the neck. "Then he gave me more stabs, not just one," he pointed out, detailing that he also wounded him in the back, in the arm, and in the side.
"Son of a bitch, I'm going to kill you," he assured that the defendant was saying to him, whom he pointed out that he tried to "take the knife away from him," also suffering a wound in his hand because of it. He also pointed out that he grabbed "a frying pan" that was in the entrance of the house and threw it at him, although he doesn't know if he hit him.
Afterwards, according to what he indicated, the defendant left the knife "in the street" and "ran away" and he managed to go up to the door of the house to ask for help from the rest of his roommates, who were sleeping. However, these have not testified in the trial, since they are in an unknown location.
However, the statement that two of them made during the investigation of the case has been read. In them, they stated that they "did not" witness the aggression, but that they did hear the argument between the two and that "half an hour later" the victim knocked on the door of the house and that he was "bleeding."
Those who have testified in the oral hearing have been the police officers who intervened that night at the scene of the events. In total, five agents who have stated that there was "a lot of blood" in the street and on the stairs of the entrance, and that it reached the first floor. From their testimony, it has also been possible to know that the knife with which the defendant allegedly stabbed his roommate was never found.
"If he hadn't had urgent assistance, he would have died"
For their part, two forensic doctors have confirmed that if the victim had not received urgent medical assistance, he would have died. And it is that, they have pointed out that two of the wounds he presented were of "vital risk," not only because of the area in which they were located, but because of their "depth."
In this regard, they have detailed that the young man suffered a pneumothorax, a hemothorax, and an emphysema as a consequence of the wounds he presented in the back and in the side. "If it hadn't been handled urgently, could he have died?" the prosecutor asked them. "If he hadn't had urgent assistance, yes," they responded.
In addition, the forensic doctors have stated that the wounds presented by the victim would be "compatible" with the events he has related.
The defense asks that the minimum penalty be applied
Thus, the Public Prosecutor has raised its conclusions to definitive, requesting for the defendant a sentence of eight years in prison, as well as a compensation for the victim of 10,765 euros. For its part, the defense has "agreed" with the crime of attempted homicide of which its defendant is accused, but has asked that "the minimum penalty" be applied to him, which would be two and a half years in prison.
And it is that, the lawyer of I.A. considers that the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness concurs, something that however has been rejected by the Public Prosecutor. "It is not enough to drink, but it is necessary to prove the influence it had and there is no evidence. We don't know what he drank, how much he drank, and if that influenced," the prosecutor has pointed out.
Likewise, she has indicated that "what happened later does not agree," since she considers that "if he fled, he must have been somewhat aware of what he had done." "He leaves and does not return. He does not return to the house and says that his companions did not tell him that the victim was admitted," added the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office, who has insisted on the "intention to kill" of the defendant and on the "severity" of the wounds presented by his companion.
"We disagree," stated the defending lawyer, who does believe that "the alcoholic intoxication" of his defendant has been proven, since the victim himself has stated in the trial that his aggressor "was very drunk" and that he believes that "if not, it would not have happened." With all this, the trial has been seen for sentencing.
