Darryl Sheepway’s first-degree murder trial came to a close Friday in Yukon Supreme Court.

It will now be up to Justice Leigh Gower to determine whether Sheepway will be convicted of manslaughter, first-degree or second-degree murder in the death of Christopher Brisson. He plans to release his written decision on Jan. 30.

Defence lawyer Lynn MacDiarmid finished her closing arguments in the case Friday morning.

Sheepway was a man who “had it all,” she said – a good job, a beautiful family, a house with property and fulfillment in his life.

But that was destroyed in a matter of months as he become severely dependent on crack cocaine. It was in that context that Brisson’s tragic death occurred, she told the court.

MacDiarmid also noted Sheepway has admitted to shooting and killing Brisson at a pullout on the McLean Lake Road on Aug. 28, 2015 in an alleged botched robbery. He wanted to plead guilty to manslaughter, she said, and claims it was never his intent to hurt or kill Brisson.

MacDiarmid told the court she believes Sheepway’s testimony is credible, and that he co-operated with police to the best of his ability.

If it weren’t for his re-enactment of the crime with RCMP officers, she argued, Crown prosecutors wouldn’t have been able to put together their case.

Sheepway had testified that he’d expected Brisson to hand over whatever drugs he had when he showed him his shotgun.

Instead, Sheepway claimed, Brisson grabbed the barrel of the gun, and they struggled over it.

Sheepway further testified two shots went off accidentally in the cab of Brisson’s truck, shattering the passenger’s side window.

He then regained control of the gun, he claimed, and leaned out of his truck to fire a third shot at the back of Brisson’s truck as it moved forward. Brisson’s truck then sped backwards, crashing in the bush on the opposite side of the road.

The shooting was an unexpected, highly charged event, MacDiarmid argued, where Sheepway was hyperreactive from his drug use.

She also referenced a forensic psychiatrist’s testimony that his mental state was “abnormal” at the time, and argued he could not forsee the consequences of his actions.

The fact that Sheepway had a loaded shotgun with him was accounted for, she said, pointing to his testimony that he planned on using it to kill himself.

The defence lawyer further claimed the court cannot determine which of three shots killed Brisson beyond a reasonable doubt.

Crown prosecutor Jennifer Grandy, however, argued the evidence is clear that Sheepway is guilty of murder.

His addiction to crack cocaine was at the root of the offence, she said, but that doesn’t mean Brisson’s death was unintended or unforeseen.

Grandy argued Sheepway should be convicted of first-degree murder if the court finds he planned to kill Brisson when he didn’t hand over drugs.

She noted Sheepway left his home planning to get drugs and had a loaded shotgun and no ID nor money with him.

He chose a secluded area and lured Brisson there, she added, and shot him in the back.

The second-degree charge would be appropriate, Grandy said, if the court finds Sheepway intended to hurt Brisson in a way that was reckless and likely to cause his death.

The prosecutor told the court that pointing a shotgun with shells in the magazine at someone while keeping one hand on the action and a finger on the trigger is enough to show intent.

Grandy also pointed to pathology, blood spatter and firearms evidence, which she said come together to support the Crown’s argument for a murder conviction.

The evidence indicates that a shotgun slug travelled through Brisson’s rear window and the driver’s side headrest, then hit him in the back, causing his death.

This would have been the shot that Sheepway deliberately fired as Brisson was trying to get away, she said.

Grandy highlighted Sheepway’s testimony that he had wanted to stop Brisson and the drugs from leaving when he fired that shot, calling it “highly telling” in terms of intent.

An expert firearms analyst also testified there was a second shot through the rear window, Grandy noted, that hit the driver’s side visor and exited through the window.

The defence had argued this damage could have been caused by a tree branch when Brisson’s truck crashed into the bush.

But Grandy called that theory “remarkable” and “almost fanticle”.

“It just requires so much in the way of speculation in the face of what I would submit is a thorough examination,” she said.

She added it would be “too much of a stretch” to believe Sheepway’s testimony that he only fired one shot through the back of Brisson’s vehicle in contrast to expert analysis of the physical evidence.

When it came to the issue of reasonable doubt, Grandy argued it was unsafe to rely on Sheepway’s testimony where it was not corroborated by other evidence.

She cited “fairly extraordinary credibility and reliability issues,” including numerous lies he told to the RCMP and his ex-wife.

Grandy further told the court she doesn’t think the evidence would leave anyone with the impression that Sheepway didn’t mean to cause injury to Brisson when he fired the fatal shot, or that he didn’t know what he was doing nor why he was doing it.

There would have been enough time, she argued, from when Sheepway gained control of the shotgun, actioned it, leaned out of his truck window, then aimed and fired at the back of Brisson’s truck for the necessary planning and deliberation to form intent.

He was very familiar with the gun, she noted, and was a self-described good shot.

Grandy also argued Sheepway would have clearly foreseen the fatal use of the weapon if he had planned on using it in a suicide.

Finally, Grandy rebuked the argument that Sheepway was in an abnormal mental state at the time, highlighting examples where he described intentional acts and clear thinking in detail.

This included hatching a plan to rob Brisson after realizing he could not get money from the bank as well as later disposing of evidence from the crime scene.