MISSION VIEJO WOMAN FOUND GUILTY OF ATTEMPTING TO MURDER HER BOYFRIEND AND STABBING AND MURDERING HIS 13-YEAR-OLD SON

MISSION VIEJO WOMAN FOUND GUILTY OF ATTEMPTING TO MURDER HER BOYFRIEND AND STABBING AND MURDERING HIS 13-YEAR-OLD SON

SANTA ANA – A Mission Viejo woman, Tamara Bohler, 48, was found guilty of attempting to murder her boyfriend by stabbing him and murdering his 13-year-old son.  Bohler entered a plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, and was convicted of all counts in the guilt phase of the trial.  The sanity phase is scheduled to begin Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C-41, Central Justice Center, Santa Ana.    

On July 3, 2003, Bohler murdered her boyfriend’s son and attempted to kill her boyfriend by stabbing him.  After the pair had gone to bed, Bohler took a knife from the kitchen and repeatedly stabbed her boyfriend, Jean Marc Weber, in an attempt to kill him while he was sleeping.  She stabbed him in the neck and face, as well as his upper body and arms.  Weber woke up and was able to disarm Bohler.  As he struggled to get away, she pushed him down the stairs.  Weber was able to flee to a neighbor’s house, bleeding profusely, and called the police. 

Bohler then returned to the kitchen and took another knife, which she carried with her into the room of Weber’s sleeping 13-year-old son, Alex.  She brutally stabbed him thirteen times while he was lying in his bed.  Alex suffered multiple defense wounds to his body as he attempted to protect himself from Bohler’s attack.  He collapsed and died at the top of the stairs.  Bohler, who had been naked during the attacks, quickly dressed and fled the house before police arrived. 

When defendants enter a plea of “not guilty by reason of insanity,” the trial is held in two phases, the guilt phase and the sanity phase.  As Bohler has been found guilty of murder and attempted murder, a jury will now considered evidence to determine if she was legally sane at the time of the crime.  When a defendant pleads “not guilty by reason of insanity,” the burden is on the defense to prove that the defendant was more likely than not legally insane when she committed the crime.  To be considered legally insane, the defense must prove that the defendant had a mental disease or defect when she committed the crime, and also that this defect kept the defendant from understanding the nature of her act or from understanding that her act was morally or legally wrong. 

Senior Deputy District Attorney Michael Murray is prosecuting the case.

###