The trial judge in Karen Rodrigue's 2005 conviction of the second-degree murder of Gerald Dawson failed to give the jury proper direction in considering the case, three B.C./Yukon Court of Appeal judges heard Monday morning.

Rodrigue, who had initially volunteered to plead guilty to manslaughter, was sentenced to life in prison, with no chance of parole for 10 years, for the stabbing death in 2004.

The appeal court is sitting in Whitehorse this week.

Rodrigue's lawyer, Richard Fowler, told appeal justices Chief Justice Lance Finch, Carol Huddart and Richard Low that the trial judge, Yukon Supreme Court Justice Leigh Gower, failed to:

provide a proper charge to the jury;

give direction on how to use the good character evidence of Dawson;

give direction on how to address the bad character evidence around Rodrigue; and

define the mental state required by law for a murder conviction.

On June 17, 2004, Rodrigue stabbed Dawson, who had been a friend of hers, Fowler told the court. During the trial, Rodrigue's defence was that she had been reacting to Dawson sexually assaulting her.

After the stabbing, Rodrigue went on a drug and alcohol binge, stealing Dawson's property as well, Fowler said.

When she was arrested, she initially lied in a statement to the RCMP. Then, in the second statement, she told them of the stabbing and of the sexual assault, the judges heard as Fowler reviewed the facts of the case.

Because of Rodrigue's lifestyle, her criminal record and other evidence, the jury heard bad character evidence, with the judge then failing to charge the jury on how to use that evidence, the appeal court judges were told.

Similarly, the judge also didn't charge the 12-person jury properly on how to use the good character evidence that was presented about Dawson, Fowler argued.

'The law is clear,' he said, adding jurors cannot stereotype the victim or perpetrator in cases.

The jurors also learned that after the stabbing, Rodrigue left a note on the door, suggesting Dawson had gone away. She also didn't call 911 and made an attempt to conceal evidence.

Fowler argued Monday the jury wasn't provided with any meaningful instructions on how to properly use the evidence from after the stabbing happened.

Murder is defined as causing a person's death when it's intended or when bodily harm is inflicted with the knowledge it could lead to death and the perpetrator is reckless as to whether death ensues.

Fowler noted that in his submission, the jury wasn't provided with any sort of meaningful instruction on how to use that after-the-fact evidence.

Jurors may have viewed the post-stabbing evidence as reckless, but the provision for recklessness applies to when the stabbing happened rather than after, the lawyer told the three appeal court judges.

Throughout Monday's hearing in seeking an order for a new trial, Fowler continued to point to case law and excerpts from the trial, including the charge to the jury.

In his response to the appeal Monday afternoon, Crown prosecutor Mike Cozens pointed out that defence lawyers at the trial never objected to nor raised issues around the charge to the jury.

While he said he couldn't disagree that there could have been clearer instruction to the jury, Cozens maintained the jury members would have dealt with the charge as it was laid out to them and that there was nothing to lead them away from that.

The three court of appeal judges reserved their decision on the case.