The sentencing hearing for a man who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder began Monday in Yukon Supreme Court.

Michael Hamilton, 25, appeared before Justice Leigh Gower, who will determine how much time Hamilton will spend behind bars before he is eligible for parole in the stabbing death of Whitehorse cab driver Brian Wheldon.

The killing was described as 'retribution,' by Crown prosecutor John Phelps, for Wheldon's 'relatively minor' sexual assault of Hamilton's common-law wife, Diane Jim.

According to the agreed statement of facts, Jim took a ride home in Wheldon's cab one night from the Kopper King bar. Instead of taking her home, however, Wheldon took Jim to his house and grabbed her and kissed her.

When Jim told Hamilton about the incident, he was 'very upset,' the document states.

There were two altercations between Hamilton and Wheldon after the assault.

In the first incident, Hamilton hit Wheldon in the face while he was sitting in his van, giving him two black eyes.

On another occasion, two weeks prior to his death, Wheldon and a friend were driving by Hamilton's residence. He started swearing at them and gave them the finger as they drove by, Phelps read out in court.

Two witnesses also said that Hamilton had uttered threats to kill Wheldon after he assaulted Jim.

The night of the murder, June 19, 2004, Hamilton phoned for Wheldon to pick him up, the statement says.

Over the course of the drive, the two got into an argument, Hamilton told police, and a struggle ensued.

He claimed that Wheldon had tried to strangle him with the radio cord. Hamilton then stabbed him with a knife, including two fatal wounds to the neck.

There was a total of 10 stab wounds on Wheldon's body, Phelps said.

The Crown described this version of events as 'if not impossible, implausible.'

Hamilton had no injuries upon arrest except for a laceration. There was no bruising or evidence of struggle on his body, Phelps told the court.

The incident did not end inside the taxi van.

One witness told police he saw Wheldon get out of the van 'with blood dripping down his face and blood spewing out of his neck,' the statement says, as Hamilton crawled into the front seat of the taxi.

When emergency medical services arrived on scene, Wheldon was lying on his back in front of the front tires, with the bumper above his knees. The van was stuck in the ditch at the side of the road.

There is no physical evidence, such as blood splattering, to show if Wheldon was run over by the van more than once, Phelps said. However, according to the forensics report, Weldon had injuries to the legs and his upper torso that were both consistent with being run over.

Gravel spray behind the van also suggests there was an attempt to move the vehicle both forward and backward while Wheldon was lying in front of the front tires.

In a re-enactment for police, Hamilton said Wheldon had jumped in front of the van and was subsequently pushed into the ditch.

This is not consistent with the types of injuries Wheldon sustained though, Phelps said.

'It is consistent of the van being driven with some force,' he told the court.

The evidences seems clear, he said, that Hamilton was driving the van and hit Wheldon.

What is less clear is whether Wheldon was run over once or twice.

The position of the body in front of the tires, the gravel spray behind the vehicle and the injuries to both the torso and the legs suggest he was run over twice, according to the Crown.

This is not the only inference that can be drawn though, according to defence lawyer Malcolm Campbell.

'It is my submission that the van was not used as an instrument, if you will, to finish off Mr. Wheldon,' he told the court yesterday.

He suggested that Wheldon could have sustained the injuries after being hit once and pulled himself out from under the van using the front bumper.

Gower asked Campbell if that was a reasonable inference to make for someone who was bleeding from the throat and had already been run over once to somehow wriggle and writhe his way out from under the van only to put himself in front of the tires again.

'Why would he place himself in front of the front wheels?' he asked. 'That makes no sense to me at all.'

Hamilton has been in jail since his arrest in June 2004 and is classified a maximum-risk inmate.

His poor behaviour includes attempting to smuggle drugs into the prison and becoming involved in power struggles with other inmates, Phelps said.

During that time, Phelps told the court, Hamilton has not attended programming or counselling at Whitehorse Correctional Centre.

Campbell countered that Hamilton would have attended alcohol and substance abuse counselling but there was none available for the bulk of 2005.

In psychological testing, Hamilton was diagnosed with below-average intelligence and severe conduct disorder likely stemming from his troubled childhood.

Originally from Vancouver Island, Hamilton's family life was described as dysfunctional and atrocious with a mother who was 'chaotic, inconsistent and abusive,' Campbell said.

He was moved from foster home to foster home and dealt with an 'ever-changing cast' of social workers, child care workers and psychologists, said Campbell, quoting a doctor's report.

His disorders are based on learned behaviours and are treatable, Campbell said.

Hamilton had an extensive criminal record as a youth, but his criminal behaviours dropped dramatically in 2000, when he met his wife, according to Campbell.

'For the first time in his life he's involved in a loving, stable, family unit,' he said. 'Then something happened to the most important part of that unit, his wife.'

He argued that because of the aggravating factors in this case, namely that Wheldon sexually assaulted Jim, Hamilton should be given the minimum sentence of 10 years without parole.

The Crown is recommending 15 years.

The hearing was scheduled to continue this afternoon.