Dean Boucher believes a jury member who convicted him of second degree murder may have been biased.

The allegation is among his list of 11 reasons for an appeal he filed last week in Yukon Supreme Court of his conviction in the second-degree murder of Bob Olson.

Boucher and Mark Lange were both convicted of the murder of the Caribou Hotel owner by a 12-member jury in June.

They were sentenced in early September when Yukon Supreme Court Judge Leigh Gower ordered that Boucher would have to serve 15 years in jail before being eligible for parole. Lange is required to serve 10 years before parole.

Over the four-week trial, court heard Boucher and Olson got into a fight at the Caribou Hotel bar in December 2004 when Olson wouldn't lend Boucher his truck. Lange also tried to hold Olson down and kicked him during the beating.

After the fight, Boucher and Lange loaded Olson into the back of his truck, stole some items from the hotel and drove towards Whitehorse. They stopped on the way, with Boucher attempting to resuscitate Olson by doing CPR. It was then they realized Olson was dead.

They stopped at the Wolf Creek subdivision and Boucher dumped the body in a ditch.

In the four-page court document listing his reasons for appeal, Boucher states:

• the jury's constitution was improper because there was a jury member who may have been biased or prejudice against Boucher;

• the composition of jury didn't allow Boucher an appropriate choice of jury members and particularly didn't include first nations;

• Boucher's lawyer at the trial, Keith Parkkari, had a conflict of interest with him that wasn't disclosed in a timely manner before the trial, which would have allowed Boucher to make an informed choice on a lawyer;

-� Gower misdirected the jury on the law and burden of proof, which amounted to non-direction;

• Gower misdirected the jury on the use of a statement by Lange which related to Boucher;

• there was fresh evidence available to Boucher which wasn't available or known before the trial which would have affected the jury's decision if it was heard at trial;

• the Crown failed to provide disclosure of evidence to Boucher or his lawyer in a timely fashion or at all. That evidence would have affected the jury's decision if it had been put to the jury;

• evidence placed before the jury wasn't evidence a jury properly charged could convict Boucher of second degree murder;

• Gower failed to direct the jury at all on the defence of intoxication reducing murder to manslaughter, or if the judge did give direction, misdirected with respect to defence which amounted to non-direction;

• The sentence with the parole ineligibility of 15 years was 'harsh, excessive and unjust in all circumstances'; and

• further and other grounds Boucher may submit and as the court allows.

If a new trial is ordered, Boucher indicated he prefer another jury trial.

Lange also filed an appeal of his conviction last month.