The defendant appealed from a lower court decision convicting him to 12 years of imprisonment for committing the crimes of domestic violence, child mistreatment and sexual abuse, and aggravated coercion. The defendant sought to reduce his sentence, arguing that the lower court erred in applying the law to the facts, since there was no evidence that his actions could be characterized as domestic violence.
The defendant appealed from a lower court decision (Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Aveiro) convicting him for committing the crime of child pornography, domestic violence, and an offense against physical integrity. In his appeal, the defendant argued that he did not commit the crime of child pornography, arguing that the elements of the crime of child pornography were not presented in this case. The Court of Appeals of Porto partially granted the appeal and declared the defendant not guilty of committing child pornography.
The Public Prosecutor (Ministério Público) brought charges against the defendant for sexual coercion and domestic violence against his spouse. The defendant was convicted by the lower court (Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores) of a aggravated domestic violence, but acquitted of sexual coercion, because the court understood that the elements of domestic violence encompassed the elements of sexual coercion. The prosecutor filed an appeal, which was granted by the Court of Appeals of Lisbon.
The defendant appealed from a lower court (Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Coimbra) judgment convicting him of domestic violence. The evidence in the record showed that defendant called his former wife names several times and once, during an altercation, defendant punched the victim in the head, causing her pain, anxiety, and fear. The defendant alleged that the lower court erred in concluding that the facts in evidence could be characterized as domestic violence, and argued that instead, he had committed defamatory libel, a less serious criminal offense.
The defendant, “B” (name omitted from public record), was sentenced in the Lower Court for statutory rape and qualified rape of the victim, a minor girl. The court found that the defendant had repeated sexual intercourse with the victim, who had initially consented to sexual intercourse but, over time, changed her mind and wanted to end her sexual relationship with B. B threatened to have sexual intercourse with the victim’s sister, and in order to prevent that, the victim continued her sexual relationship with B.
One month after marrying the victim, “BB” (name omitted from public record), the defendant, “AA” (name omitted from public record) coerced BB to become a prostitute so she could help with their financial problems. After BB engaged in sexual relations as a prostitute, AA began to physically assault BB and to threaten to kill her children, alleging that was enjoying being a prostitute.
The Public Prosecutor (Ministério Público) brought charges of domestic violence against the defendant, “B” (name omitted from public record), for stalking his former girlfriend, the victim, “C” (name omitted from public record), after their relationship ended. Evidence produced during trial showed that B repeatedly sought to reconnect with C over the course of five months after the end of their relationship, which caused great anxiety and distress to C.
The Public Prosecutor (Ministério Público) brought charges against two spouses, as defendants, for domestic violence under section 152 of the Portuguese Penal Code. The Public Prosecutor alleged that in a particular episode, both spouses physically and verbally assaulted each other, and should therefore both be penalized for the crime of domestic violence. Both spouses had previously been convicted of charges of domestic violence.
The defendant, a teacher, was charged with sexual harassment of children for multiple offenses against two of his students. On repeated occasions, the defendant inappropriately touched and made obscene gestures to the students, who were 11 and 12 years old. The Lower Court found the defendant guilty of the charges. The defendant appealed, arguing that he did not have sexual intent towards the students, and therefore did not satisfy all requisites of the crime of sexual harassment under section 171 of the Portuguese Penal Code.
The Public Prosecutor (Ministério Público) brought charges against defendant, “B” (name omitted from public record), for the crime of rape for having anal sex with the victim without the victim’s consent. The Lower Court found B guilty. B appealed, arguing that the victim facilitated the anal penetration, and therefore the court should find that the victim consented. The Appellate Court found that, although the victim facilitated penetration, the victim did so to preserve his integrity, which does not qualify as consent.
