The Court of Appeal for the Yukon Territory has dismissed Kieran Daunt's request for a new trial on the 2003 shooting of Robert Truswell near Dawson City, for which Daunt was convicted in May 2005.

Daunt, 52, was convicted of second-degree murder for Truswell's death and was given a life sentence, with no chance of parole for at least 10 years.

According to the written appeal, he had sought a new trial on the grounds that:

there was allegedly impropriety and unfairness in the closing address of Crown counsel;

the trial judge, Yukon Supreme Court Justice Ron Veale, had erred when instructing the jury on the mental state required for murder; and

fresh evidence had been discovered post-trial.

But the Mr. Justice Low of the court of appeal said in the written decision, released this week, that he 'would not give effect to any of these submissions.'

Low's findings were agreed upon and signed by Chief Justice Finch and the Madam Justice Huddart.

In response to Daunt's argument that the Crown counsel's closing remarks were misleading, Low wrote:

'In my opinion, the transgressions of Crown counsel in the present case were minor and innocuous ... Read in its entirety, the Crown's address to the jury was balanced.'

Low added: 'I am not persuaded that the address of Crown counsel deprived the appellant (Daunt) of a fair trial and I would not give effect to the first ground of appeal.'

Daunt also protested that Veale's instructions to the jury were inadequate because the jury members were not provided with a definition of 'reckless,' nor were they given sufficient explanation of the state of mind necessary to constitute murder.

The judge's instructions were that, 'For an unlawful killing to be murder, Crown counsel must prove that Kieran Daunt meant either to kill Robert Truswell or meant to cause Robert Truswell bodily harm that Kieran Daunt knew was likely to kill Robert Truswell, and was reckless whether Robert Truswell died or not. The Crown does not have to prove both.'

However, Daunt argued that 'there was no instruction that one or the other of the two intents in murder had to be contemporaneous with the act of shooting.'

Low wrote that he 'would not give effect to any of these submissions.'

He added that since the jury clearly decided Daunt's shooting of Truswell was intentional, a finding of one or the other of the two intents in murder was inevitable.

The discovery of fresh evidence, which occurred a week after the trial's conclusion in 2005, amounted to a .30-.30 rifle and some tins of ammunition found in an old culvert on a mine claim which Treswell had previously owned.

Daunt felt that this new discovery added credence to his argument that he acted out of self-defence and fear that Truswell might shoot him first, being aware that Truswell owned a gun.

However, the jury was made aware during the trial that 'Truswell did not say that he had a weapon (the day of the shooting), he did not attack (Daunt) before (he) fired the first shot, and he did not threaten to do (Daunt) any physical harm during the verbal confrontation,' leading them to believe that Daunt acted out of anger, not fear.

Low added that Daunt felt the fresh evidence 'would counter the Crown's submission to the jury that (Daunt) had no reason to believe that Truswell had a weapon in his truck on the day he died.'

Truswell was sitting in his truck, his arms obscured from Daunt's view, when he was shot at the Gold Hill mining claim during daylight hours on Aug. 28, 2003.

However, Low argued the new evidence 'would have done nothing to bolster (Daunt's) assertion that he thought Truswell had a rifle with him on the day in question.'

The jury was presented with plenty of evidence during the trial proving that Truswell 'was no stranger to guns.'

That evidence included the testimony of a man who said Truswell shot at him in 1997 or 1998 while the man was riding his motorcycle.

Other examples of Truswell's past violent behaviour that the jury was made aware of included an incident in which Truswell struck another man on the head with a piece of lumber in 1982, earning him the name 'Two-by-Four Bob.'

Truswell and Daunt had known each other since 1978, although their relationship 'ranged from companionable to antagonistic,' Low wrote.

The two men 'often helped each other with their respective mining operations (at the Gold Hill mining claim)' as well.

However, their relationship deteriorated in the months leading up to Truswell's death. Truswell had apparently accused Daunt of being a thief and stealing personal items from him.

He even threatened to shoot Daunt, who he felt 'was trying to run Truswell off his (mining) claim.'

Their ongoing conflict culminated in the confrontation at the Gold Hill mining claim, resulting in Truswell's death from two bullet wounds.

A pathologist testified during the trial that Truswell would have died within 10 minutes of being shot, from loss of blood.

Contrary to Daunt's beliefs on that day, Truswell did not have a gun in his vehicle.

Given his failed appeal, Daunt will remain in a B.C. penitentiary.

The trial, held in Whitehorse, attracted national publicity at the time.