She stabbed her husband multiple times as he slept, leaving him in a pool of his blood on a neighbour's driveway.
But one factor was in her favour for getting a reduced sentence - her care of their children.
Jane* was sentenced to six years in jail in November last year after pleading guilty to a malicious act with intent and grievous bodily harm, with the aggravating circumstance of domestic violence.
The earliest release she could have hoped for was February 2020.
Jane and John* were separated in January 2018 when she turned up at his door one evening, insisting she stay the night.
They slept in separate rooms, before he woke to Jane yelling, "I'm going to kill you tonight", as she stabbed him four times - in the shoulder, arm, elbow and buttock.
He grabbed the knife, cutting his hand before running outside and passing out in front of the neighbour's house.
John had been violent towards Jane since 2005. Despite that, they had three children.
A month before the incident, she discovered he was having an affair with a family friend.
In sentencing, it was noted Jane was a domestic violence victim, remorseful, a low risk of reoffending and had sought treatment for mental illness.
Another issue raised was the couple's teenage daughter, who's spina bifida requires 24-hour care by Jane.
But the sentencing judge ruled Jane's offending was too serious to justify a non-custodial sentence.
With Jane behind bars, her adult daughter from a previous marriage agreed to care for the girl so she didn't need foster care.
This week, the Queensland Court of Appeal ruled the judge did not give enough weight to Jane's care for her disabled daughter as a exceptional circumstance.
It brought forward her parole eligibility date to August this year.
"There was never a question that ... punishment for the applicant's offending ... required actual custody to be served," appeal court Justice Debra Mullins said.
"The actual custodial component had to ... be of sufficient length to amount to punishment for the offending, without prolonging the applicant's absence from (her daughter) any longer than necessary
"I therefore conclude the sentence was manifestly excessive."
The judgment raises broader questions regarding sentencing of domestic violence offenders who are primary caregivers of high-needs dependents, particularly in regards to community expectations of sentences.
"The point to make here is the specific, exceptional kinds of care she had in this case," Heather Douglas, a University of Queensland domestic violence law expert, told AAP.
In this case, general deterrence was still seen as an important factor.
"We do see that a lot with domestic violence cases, judges are holding up general deterrence," Professor Douglas said.
"For most people in the community, experiencing a prison sentence is a significant deterrence to doing things against the law.
"It is a big deal and that's what this woman has experienced."
* Pseudonyms used to protect identity
1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)
Lifeline 13 11 14