Buenos Aires, December 19 (NA) -- The public defense of the sole suspect in the death of Marisa Coliman argued for a supposed lack of evidence regarding the aggravating factor of cruelty (ensañamiento) in the murder, which occurred on July 25, 2023. According to information from the Argentine News Agency, the accused, Nicolás Medina, was found guilty last September of homicide and for minor injuries to the victim's son. The woman was stabbed 30 times in the 'Conventillo de García', where she lived with her descendant. In the previous hearing, the jury dismissed the aggravating factor of femicide and the attempted sexual assault with carnal access, as per the communiqué sent by the Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) of Río Negro to the Argentine News Agency. On this occasion, the public criminal defense argued that 'during the trial, the prosecution did not prove the essential elements of the crime of cruelty, and the arguments of both the prosecution and the civil plaintiff led the popular jury to associate a certain number of wounds with the criminal figure of cruelty'. At the same time, the defense representative noted that 'the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to support the cruelty charge' and considered that 'the proven fact is different from the one attributed to the accused'. With a life sentence, the accused's lawyers relied on a 'broken link in the prosecution's argument, which equates the number of wounds with the intention to cause pain and a specific intent', although they pointed out that 'cruelty requires specific elements that the prosecution must prove, but the doctor from the Forensic Investigation Corps was not consulted about the pain the victim might have felt'. Meanwhile, they requested the appeal resource and that the sentence be changed to 'simple homicide', as well as asking for the file to be sent back to the judge. However, the prosecution explained that 'the jury was indeed instructed on cruelty'. Likewise, the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office questioned the reasons why the jury might have misinterpreted the evidence and added: 'The jury is sovereign, and they were the ones who interpreted that the accused was guilty of cruelty. They did not give a verdict contrary to the evidence presented during the trial'. __IP__The prosecution requested that the guilty verdict be confirmed, as the evidence produced at trial allowed the jury to issue the final verdict. The civil plaintiff, representing the victim's children, fully adhered to the position of the Public Prosecutor's Office. The Court of Appeals indicated that its resolution will be made known within the legal timeframes.
