The incident occurred one April afternoon last year in Rakovník. The defendant was drinking in one of the local apartments with her mother, her ex-boyfriend and her fiancé. As time passed, the proportion of alcohol in the blood of those present increased, passions arose. The defendant scolded her mother’s ex-boyfriend, asking him what he intended to do with her mother. In addition, the defendant’s mother called her ex “love”, which turned her daughter off. Especially because the man had not treated her mother well in the past.
At one point, according to the verdict, she asked her mother and her fiancé to leave the apartment, saying that she needed to talk to the victim. When they both left, the girl took a kitchen knife and stabbed the man three times in the neck. She then dropped the knife into the sink, left the apartment and locked the door behind her.
In front of the house, she was met by her mother and her fiance, who then broke into the apartment and called an ambulance. The men saved their lives with timely intervention in the cancer hospital.
Both the defendant and the stabbed person had over four per million alcohol in their blood at the time of the attack. The woman basically did not testify to the matter, but at least she made it indisputable that she had stabbed the man several times.
Even considering his drunkenness, the victim hardly remembered the event. He only remembered that the defendant’s mother and boyfriend left the apartment for alcohol and kebab. He then remembered a silhouette approaching him and the defendant saying: “I’m going to cut you.”
Paradoxically, it was a friend of the defendant who was worried about a possible incident, but in the opposite guard. Before leaving the apartment, he hid almost all the knives, including the incriminated one, from the kitchen in a shoebox, because he was afraid that the injured party could harm the defendant. He called him a psychopath and was worried about his fiancee.
When the defendant and his mother were returning from shopping, they met a bloodied girl in front of the house and asked what had happened. “Sorry,” said only the girl. When they all got to the apartment and found out the situation, the defendant said: “Good for him.”
At the beginning of last November, the regional court in Prague found the girl guilty of attempted premeditated murder and sentenced her to a ten-year sentence, exceptionally reduced below the statutory penalty rate.
The public prosecutor appealed against the verdict, according to which there is no reason for such a reduction of the sentence. According to him, the defendant did everything necessary to complete the crime and did not show sincere remorse or sufficient self-reflection. On the other hand, the defendant’s lawyer objected in the appeal that it was premeditated murder.
The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the public prosecutor’s office. “The defendant’s objections relate only to the circumstances on the basis of which the court came to its conclusion about her actions as premeditated,” noted the chairman of the appeals panel, Robert Pacovský, stating that the defense had already raised the same objections during the main trial and the trial court had already dealt with them then.
“In the case of the youngest, she had to go to get the knife, from that the regional court correctly concluded that she had to leave the room and look for the knife, return to the victim and attack him there,” continued the judge. “It was a premeditated action. At least in rough outline, she had to be aware of the action she was about to take,” he added.
According to the Court of Appeal, the conditions for imposing an exceptionally reduced sentence were not met. “After committing the crime, not only did she not provide any help, she did not show any self-reflection, but she left the scene of the crime and locked the victim in the apartment,” the judge also reminded. According to the appeals court, the sentence imposed on the very lower limit of the rate, which in this case amounts to 12 to 20 years, is appropriate.
The defendant must also pay the victim 200 thousand crowns as compensation.
