The woman convicted of murdering Whitehorse resident Gerald Dawson in 2004 has filed an appeal with the Yukon Court of Appeal.

According to court documents, 36-year-old Karen Rodrigue, who was convicted last October of the second-degree murder of Dawson, is seeking to have her Yukon Supreme Court conviction reduced to manslaughter or be awarded a new trial.

The court found that Rodrigue was guilty of stabbing Dawson, 64, in his Marwell home on June 17, 2004.

Rodrigue is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for 10 years at the Edmonton Institution for Women.

Documents filed with the Yukon Supreme Court state Rodrigue is seeking her appeal on 'grounds involving question(s) of law alone.'

Justice Leigh Gower heard the case.

Rodrigue's reasons for seeking the appeal, as stated in court documents, include:

• the trial judge's summary of the evidence was overly detailed, lengthy and confusing;

• the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence;

• the Crown erred in inviting the jury to rely on myths and stereotypes based on biased assumptions to disprove the defence of provocation;

• the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury on evidence that was not myths or stereotypes;

• the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury on evidence essential in arriving at a just conclusion in reference to the defence of provocation;

• the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury members that it was up to them to decide what evidence of the appellant's statements they accepted and what weight it should be given;

• the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury to consider alternative explanations for after-the-fact conduct, including her drug and alcohol addictions;

• the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury members it was up to them to decide what evidence of the appellant's after-the-fact conduct they accepted and what weight it should be given; and

• the trial judge erred in not instructing the jury that evidence of the appellant's after-the-fact conduct should be considered, while evidence of her demeanor should not be considered.

During the trial, two distinct theories were presented by the Crown and the defence as to what transpired at Dawson's home early on June 17, 2004.

Defence lawyer Nils Clarke said in his closing arguments that Rodrigue stabbed Dawson twice in the back after Dawson had sexually assaulted her.

She was overwhelmed, shamed, angry, afraid, he said, after she had been raped by a friend who subsequently told her no one would believe her story.

Crown prosecutor David McWhinnie argued Rodrigue killed Dawson in an argument over money.

Rodrigue was on the cusp of a downward spiral into a drug run, said McWhinnie. That resulted in a 10-day binge of cocaine and alcohol after Dawson was killed.

She was in the throes of an addiction at the time she met up with Dawson and at the time she committed the murder, he said.

Paraphrasing forensic psychiatrist Dr. Shabehram Lohrasbe's testimony, McWhinnie said Rodrigue was in a state where she would have done almost anything to acquire drugs.