The defence began its closing arguments in Darryl Sheepway’s first-degree murder trial Thursday in Yukon Supreme Court.

Lawyer Vincent Larochelle began by saying, “Mr. Sheepway is a killer, your honour, but he’s not a murderer.”

Sheepway, 39, has admitted that he shot and killed Christopher Brisson, 25, at a pullout on the McLean Lake Road on Aug. 28, 2015. But he claimed it was never his intention to hurt Brisson.

Sheepway’s lawyers argued he should be convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

During trial, Sheepway testified he expected his shotgun would intimidate Brisson into handing over crack cocaine. At the time, he was desperate for drugs and had no access to money.

According to Sheepway’s version of what happened next, Brisson unexpectedly grabbed the gun and two shots went off accidentally in the cab of his truck.

When Sheepway regained control of the shotgun, he said, Brisson drove forward.

Sheepway then leaned out his truck window to fire a third shot at the back of Brisson’s truck.

Following the third shot, Brisson’s truck quickly sped backwards, crashing into the bushes on the opposite side of the road.

It is uncontested that Brisson was hit by a shotgun slug in his back left shoulder which lodged in his right jaw. He died as a result of catastrophic blood loss from the injury.

Larochelle presented the defence’s theory Thursday that it was the second shot that went off in the cab that killed Brisson.

He supported this by parsing through expert Crown testimony, but noted it’s the defence’s role to raise reasonable doubt, not to definitively prove an alternative theory.

Joseph Prendergast, an expert firearms expert, had testified that evidence in Brisson’s truck was consistent with two bullets travelling through Brisson’s back truck window.

The first damaged the driver’s side visor and exited through the windshield, he said, while the second travelled through the headrest and hit Brisson.

Sheepway, however, was adamant that he only fired one shot at the back of Brisson’s truck. And he said he still doesn’t know which shot hit Brisson.

Larochelle stressed that he believes Sheepway’s testimony is credible.

He argued it’s possible the bullet that created the hole in the headrest could have ended up in the truck without hitting Brisson. It would have then been tossed out when the truck crashed, he said.

He also claimed the hole in the windshield and damage to the visor could have been caused by a tree branch in the crash, highlighting that tree debris was found on the console.

Larochelle criticized Prendergast for not conducting test fires of Sheepway’s shotgun and ammunition.

And he argued that positive lead testing in the truck could have been caused by gunshot residue rather than bullet residue, saying when the shotgun was fired, it would have created a “cloud of lead particles.”

Larochelle then detailed how evidence from the autopsy performed by Dr. Matthew Orde could fit the defence’s theory.

Orde had testified that shotgun wadding was found in close proximity to the slug in Brisson’s body.

Larochelle questioned how this would be possible if the slug had travelled from the back of Brisson’s truck, through the back window and headrest and then 30 to 50 cm through Brisson’s body, saying wadding separates from a slug after three to four feet.

He also argued circular abrasions on Brisson’s back near the gunshot wound could have been caused by paper wadding, meaning the shotgun would have been fired at close range.

According to Orde’s testimony, Brisson would have been leaning forward with his heard turned to the left and slightly upwards when he was shot.

Larochelle used this evidence to argue Brisson had leaned forward to put his truck in gear, while keeping one hand on the shotgun barrel, between the first and second shots.

Brisson immediately let go after the second shot, Larochelle claimed, because he had been hit which would have caused his left arm to be paralyzed.

Larochelle further argued it wouldn’t make sense for Brisson to be looking left and upwards if he was ducking from a shot through his back window.

Finally, Larochelle raised issue with testimony by RCMP Sgt. Alison Cameron, a blood spatter analyst.

He claimed blood spatter patterns in the truck showed the truck was moving forward after Brisson was shot.

Larochelle argued that overall, the Crown’s evidence “doesn’t make sense,” saying it was “pretty patchy work” and inadequate for a murder conviction.

Co-defence counsel Lynn MacDiarmid took over closing arguments in the afternoon.

She noted this is not your usual murder trial, as most of the evidence has come from Sheepway himself.

She argued her client has co-operated as much as possible and told the truth to the best of his memory when he took RCMP officers on a re-enactment of the crime on Oct. 4, 2016.

MacDiarmid also highlighted testimony from forensic psychiatrist Dr. Shabehram Lohrasbe, who said Sheepway would have been in an “abnormal” mental state at the time of the crime.

He noted that Sheepway was experiencing withdrawal and intense cravings for crack cocaine, as well as other stressors at the time.

Based on the evidence, MacDiarmid argued, there is reasonable doubt about whether Sheepway intended to hurt or kill Brisson, and which shot was fatal.

As a result, she said, Sheepway should be acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter.

Crown prosecutors were expected to complete their closing arguments today.

That will be the final chapter in the trial, which began Nov. 6, until Justice Leigh Gower issues his decision.