A man in Palma de Mallorca has been sentenced to 22 months in prison for attempting to break into and occupy a home while its owner was inside—and for making death threats with a knife against a bystander and her child.
A man has been convicted in Palma de Mallorca for attempting to illegally occupy a private residence while the homeowner was present inside. The incident, which occurred in broad daylight on 12 February 2022 at around 4:30pm, escalated when the intruder threatened a woman and her minor son with a knife after they caught him trying to force entry.
The Penal Court No. 5 of Palma de Mallorca has sentenced the man to one year and ten months in prison. The ruling, issued by the Provincial Court of the Balearic Islands, imposes one year and one month for attempted illegal occupation and an additional nine months for attempted threats, in accordance with Spain’s Criminal Code.
In addition to the custodial sentence, the convict has also been barred from standing for public office for the duration of his sentence under Article 56 of the Penal Code—an important side note that reflects the gravity of the offence, even if it’s unlikely he was contemplating a political career.
An attempted break-in with the owner inside
According to the court’s written judgment, the man approached a private residence “with the intent to unlawfully derive financial gain” and proceeded to attack the front door’s lock with a knife in an effort to break in.
Unbeknownst to him, the homeowner was inside at the time, and the intrusion did not go unnoticed. A woman and her underage son encountered the man in the act. When they attempted to intervene, he became aggressive, allegedly shouting: “And what do you care, you bitch—get out of here, or I’ll kill you,” all while waving the same knife in their direction.
The bladed weapon was later seized by local police.
Appeal rejected by the court
The sentence was handed down on 1 July 2024, but the defence team filed an appeal claiming there had been errors in the assessment of evidence and questioning the credibility of one of the witnesses. They argued that there was not enough proof that the convicted man committed the acts in question. Further, they alleged the female witness had “ulterior motives” which were ignored by the court.
These arguments were not well received by the judiciary. On 25 April, the Provincial Court rejected the appeal, noting that the original verdict was not arbitrary or irrational and had been firmly grounded in the evidence presented—a process which, in the court’s view, had been properly conducted.
As to the alleged “ulterior motives” of the witness, the court pointed out that these were neither properly identified nor substantiated by the defence. Moreover, even if her credibility were in doubt, there was a second eyewitness to the incident whose reliability was not challenged, further undermining the basis for the appeal.
Regarding the claim that the defendant’s presumption of innocence had been violated, the court dismissed it outright, describing the argument as inconsistent and incompatible with both the facts of the case and the constitutional framework for such claims.
