The B.C./Yukon Court of Appeal has overturned the second-degree murder conviction which saw Karen Rodrigue sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 10 years.

A jury convicted Rodrigue of the 2004 stabbing death of Gerald Dawson. She had initially offered a guilty plea to manslaughter, which the Crown turned down.

The appeal of the murder conviction was heard in May when the Court of Appeal held its annual sitting in Whitehorse.

'The errors identified in the charge (to the jury) by the appellant (Rodrigue) were serious, and were errors of law that had a potential to cause a miscarriage of justice. They can only be remedied by a new trial,' the court of appeal ruled in its decision.

It was written by Chief Justice Lance Finch and signed by Justices Carol Huddart and Richard Low.

The 27-page decision was handed down Wednesday. It states Yukon Supreme Court Justice Leigh Gower failed to give a proper charge to the jury about how Rodrigue acted after the stabbing.

It was learned during the trial that Rodrigue covered Dawson's body with a blanket, wiped up blood off the floor and grabbed Dawson's car keys, gun and some beer before taking off in his vehicle.

Before getting to the car, she left a note on the door in Dawson's name saying he was out of town for a couple of weeks.

She also took the knife that was used and bloody socks with her, leaving them at a recycling depot.

In the 10 days that followed, she drank and was using cocaine with her boyfriend before they were pulled over by the RCMP.

After her arrest, she initially didn't tell police about the sexual assault by Dawson which she said had led to the stabbing.

'In her testimony, Ms. Rodrigue acknowledged that she did not check to see whether Mr. Dawson was breathing in the 10 to 15 minutes after his death,' the decision states.

'She did not call the police after she stabbed him. She could not explain why she did not call 911. She guessed that she moved the body so it couldn't be seen through a window,' the decision notes.

The jury should have been instructed about how to use the evidence in relation to her mental state at the time of the stabbing, the judges ruled.

'Having regard for the volume and significance of the after-the-fact conduct, the failure to address this issue adequately in the charge is an error in law within the meaning of (section) 686 (1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code and had the potential to lead to a miscarriage of justice,' the decision reads.

'In my opinion, the only appropriate remedy is to quash the conviction and order a new trial pursuant to (section) 686(2)(b) of the Code.'

Rodrigue's lawyers had also argued over evidence given about both her and Dawson's reputations.

The lawyers conceded the judge gave a proper charge to the jury on Rodrigue's criminal record. However, it argued Gower didn't give any instruction 'whatsoever' as to what limits were on the jury on evidence about her character, much of which related to her actions after the stabbing.

'Counsel contends that although the Crown did not encourage the jury to use propensity' reasoning in reaching its verdict, it did rely on evidence of the appellant's character as relevant to the issue of motive,' it reads.

The judge was obliged to tell the jury members they couldn't use evidence of her lifestyle or character to infer guilt for murder, where the only issue was whether she intended to murder Dawson, the decision notes.

'Much of the evidence of disreputable conduct was relevant to the issue of motive, but it didn't not bear directly on that issue or relate directly to Mr. Dawson,' it reads.

'Rather it was evidence of a pre-existing disreputable lifestyle. Moreover, a lot of the evidence related to the disreputable behaviour of the appellant after the stabbing occurred.'

With the Crown substantially relying on the character evidence of both Rodrigue and Dawson, there is 'a real likelihood that the jury might have engaged in an impermissible line of reasoning,' the appeal court ruled.

On the deceased's character, the Crown argued Dawson's reputation was relevant to Rodrigue's defence that he sexually assaulted her, which, she argued, provoked the stabbing.

'In my view, the evidence of Mr. Dawson's reputation concerning his personal conduct towards other women was of limited value,' the appeal court decision states. 'Sexual conduct is inherently private in nature, and sexual misconduct even more so.'

There's a danger the jury would naturally consider the evidence of Dawson's good character with the evidence of Rodrigue's bad character and compare the two, it was noted.

The judge should have cautioned the jury about using character evidence with a proper instruction being one where the evidence about Dawson had limited value on the sexual assault allegation and that the evidence shouldn't be used as a basis for character comparison.

Finally, the Court of Appeal ruled, the instruction given to the jury by Gower had merit, but did not fit the circumstance in the case around Rodrigue's actions after the stabbing and the danger that the jury might not understand the need for intent in a murder conviction.