The Ana Trujillo stiletto murder case ended with a Houston jury convicting Trujillo of murder on April 8, 2014, for killing her boyfriend, Dr. Stefan Andersson, by striking him at least 25 times in the head, face, and neck with the five-and-a-half-inch heel of a blue suede platform pump. Three days later she was sentenced to life in prison, with a mandatory minimum of 30 years before she becomes eligible for parole.1Houston Chronicle. Jurors Sentence Stiletto Killer to Life in Prison
What Happened the Night of the Killing
Trujillo and Andersson had been dating for a few months when, on the night of June 8, 2013, they went out drinking at a Houston nightclub. A bar receipt entered into evidence at trial showed they ordered six shots of tequila and four vodka drinks.2Houston Chronicle. Jurors Find Woman Guilty in Stiletto Stabbing Case Around 2:00 a.m. they took a cab back to Andersson’s condominium at the Parklane high-rise on Hermann Drive in Houston’s Museum District.3Houston Chronicle. Woman Accused in Stiletto Killing Set to Begin Trial
A neighbor later reported hearing a man scream at 2:13 a.m. He heard no woman yell.4ABC News. Ana Trujillo Guilty in Houston Stiletto Murder At 3:41 a.m., Trujillo called 911 herself, sobbing to the dispatcher, “Listen, he’s about to die!”5ABC 13. The Stiletto Killer Paramedics could not save Andersson, a 59-year-old research professor at the University of Houston. He had bled to death on the apartment floor. The shoe, which Andersson had bought for Trujillo for $1,500, lay on the carpet above his head.6CBS News. Texas Woman Guilty of Killing Boyfriend With Stiletto
Two Versions of the Same Night
Trujillo told police that Andersson, thinking she was going to leave him, became enraged and attacked her, and that she grabbed her shoe as the only weapon within reach. In her recorded interrogation she said she had hit him only “a couple of times.”6CBS News. Texas Woman Guilty of Killing Boyfriend With Stiletto
Prosecutors told the jury the opposite: that Trujillo was the aggressor, that she straddled Andersson while striking him repeatedly, and that she never told the 911 dispatcher or responding officers she had been in danger.7Click2Houston. The Evidence Room: The Stiletto Killer Prosecutor John Jordan described Andersson’s face as looking “like Swiss cheese” from the puncture wounds.
The Physical Evidence
The medical examiner found no skull fractures. Andersson’s cause of death was blood loss from puncture wounds. He had clear defensive injuries on his hands and wrists. Trujillo had none.7Click2Houston. The Evidence Room: The Stiletto Killer
Jurors were shown the blood-stained heel, still with hair on it, along with crime scene photographs of a large pool of blood near Andersson’s head, blood spatter on the walls, and Trujillo’s bloody jeans.8New York Daily News. Houston Woman Found Guilty of Killing Boyfriend With Stiletto Heel Blood-spatter analysis supported the prosecution’s theory that Trujillo had been on top of Andersson while striking him.
The state also called two witnesses to establish a pattern of violence in the weeks just before the killing. James Wells, a former romantic partner, testified that Trujillo attacked him without provocation about two weeks before Andersson’s death, biting his head, pulling skin from his scalp, and telling him, “You’re a dead man.” Chanda Ellison testified she had used a stick to fend off an attack by Trujillo in her own home.9NBC DFW. Jury Deliberating in High Heel Shoe Stabbing Trial
Why the Self-Defense Argument Failed
Defense attorney Jack Carroll built his case around self-defense but made an unusual tactical choice during the guilt phase: he did not put Trujillo on the stand. Instead, he relied on her three-hour police interrogation video and her 911 call to present her account.10ABC News. Woman Convicted of Stiletto Murder Says Slain Boyfriend Was Abusive Trujillo later said she wished she had testified during that phase and that her attorney had advised against it.11Click2Houston. Stiletto Killer Explains Why Jury Convicted Her
The jury deliberated about an hour before returning a guilty verdict. Carroll appeared stunned by the speed, telling jurors afterward, “I thought I had convinced you all. I knew I failed in my duty, I missed something there. You took less than two hours. I missed something, what did I miss?” Trujillo herself showed little visible reaction, though she was overheard telling friends in Spanish, “I loved him and he was crazy.”9NBC DFW. Jury Deliberating in High Heel Shoe Stabbing Trial
The Sudden-Passion Phase
The trial then moved to a sentencing phase in which jurors had to decide whether Trujillo had acted under “sudden passion,” a finding that would have capped her sentence at two to 20 years in prison.12Beaumont Enterprise. Jurors Sentence Stiletto Killer to Life in Prison This time Trujillo did testify, spending six hours on the stand. She described her childhood in Mexico and Arizona, her divorce, and abuse by her first husband, and she physically re-enacted the alleged struggle with Andersson in the courtroom, using Carroll as a stand-in.13ABC News. Stiletto Shoe Murderer Ana Trujillo Sentenced to Life in Prison
The defense also called Julia Babcock, a licensed professional counselor, who testified that while Trujillo’s relationship with Andersson was not itself abusive, Trujillo’s history of abuse in prior relationships caused her to “overreact” and adopt an “aggressive stance” when she perceived conflict.14Findlaw. Trujillo v. State, No. 01-14-00397-CR
Jurors deliberated more than five hours before rejecting sudden passion. On April 11, 2014, Judge Brock Thomas read the sentence: life in prison, with a mandatory minimum of 30 years before parole eligibility. Trujillo cried, and her mother sobbed in the courtroom. “I never meant to kill him,” Trujillo told the judge. “It was self-defense. I never meant to hurt him.”15BBC News. Texas Stiletto Killer Sentenced to Life
The Appeal
Trujillo appealed to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (First District), under case number 01-14-00397-CR, raising three issues.
- She argued she had been unconstitutionally deprived of counsel during the 30-day window to file a motion for a new trial. The appellate court agreed she lacked representation for part of that window but found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because she could not identify any plausible claim such a motion would have raised.
- She argued the trial court should have declared a mistrial after prosecutors asked her about an incident in which she allegedly bit a man on the cheek. The appellate court held that the trial judge’s instruction to disregard the question cured any prejudice.
- She argued her attorney was ineffective for holding Babcock’s expert testimony for the sentencing phase instead of using it during the guilt phase. The court rejected that claim, reasoning that Babcock’s characterization of Trujillo’s conduct as an “overreaction” driven by “impaired” judgment would have undercut a self-defense claim by suggesting her fear was not objectively reasonable.
On July 28, 2015, the appellate court overruled all three issues and affirmed both the conviction and the life sentence.14Findlaw. Trujillo v. State, No. 01-14-00397-CR
Where Trujillo Is Now
Trujillo is serving her life sentence at the Gatesville Correctional Facility in Texas.5ABC 13. The Stiletto Killer Under the terms of her sentence, she will not become eligible for parole until 2044 at the earliest.