'Intentional killing' or self-defence? Jurors hear closing arguments in Peter Khill murder trial

WARNING: This story contains distressing details

On thatfateful night in 2016, was Peter Khill amilitary-trained man who pulled the trigger because he was afraidto die? Or was he aman who decided in a moment's notice he would murder whoever had startled him and his girlfriend at their rural Hamilton home in the middle of the night?

A 12-person jury is expected tostart deciding Thursday which depiction best describesKhill after hearing closing arguments in his second-degree murder trial.

Jon Styres,a 29-year-old man from Six Nations of the Grand River,was trying to steal Khill's truck on Feb. 4, 2016, but died after Khill shot him twice with a shotgun.

Khill, a former reservist, has pleaded not guilty.

For three weeks, the Crown prosecutors and defence have put forward their cases. The onus is on the Crown to convince the jury Khill is guilty, but both parties got their final words in on Wednesday at the John Sopinka Courthouse in Hamilton.

Khill tried to save Styresafter shooting, defence says

Defence lawyer Jeffrey Manishen started by highlighting whatKhill said minutes after shooting Styres. On the phone with a 911 dispatcher, Khill said he tried CPR for six or seven minutes, but Styres had no pulse.

Manishen also mentioned Khill was doing chest compressions and breaths to try and revive Styres, compared to responding officers only doing chest compressions.

"That's the action of someone who tried to save a life, someone who felt awful about what happened," Manishen told jurors.

On the 911 call, Khill also said he thought Styres was pointing a gun at him when Khill fired his shotgun.

And while being arrested, Khill said he tried to save Styres, was relying on military training and asked if self-defence meant anything in court.

LISTEN |Peter Khill talks to dispatcher after shooting Jon Styres:

Peter Khill talks to 911 dispatcher after shooting and killing Jon Styres

2 years ago

Duration 1:30

The jury heard a 911 call made shortly after Peter Khill shot Jon Styres. Khill is on trial for second-degree murder.

The defence lawyer preemptively tried to discredit the Crown's closing statement and try to explain any inconsistencies in Khill'srecounting of that night.

Manishen said prosecutors have scrutinized Khill for how he described Styres's hands being together and rising above his waist.

While Styres wasn't really holding a gun but did have a knife in his pocket, Manishen proposed Styres may have been holding the $47 worth of loonies and toonies found on the ground near the truck when he was shot.

Manishen denied Styres was on his hands and knees when Khill shot him a second time andalso emphasized various discrepanciesin the testimonies ofblood stain analyst Colin Hoare and forensic pathologist Dr. Jane Turner.

In Hoare's case, Manishen said, he didn't follow proper protocol when doing the analysis, neglecting to use things like the autopsy report.

Turner, meanwhile, provided a different previous testimonyand missed an important detail in her review of the autopsy report when forming her theory of what happened.

Manishen pointed to expert testimony on Mondaydescribing howhigh-stress situationsimpact someone's decision making and how people who undergo military training may use that training under stress.

Manishen said Khill isn't guilty of second-degree murder or the lesser offence ofmanslaughter because what he did was reasonable given the circumstances. Khillwas scared for his own life and his now-wife's lifewhen Styres's attempt to break into the truck woke them up at 3 a.m., he said.

"Peter Khill isn't a murderer, he acted in self-defence," Manishen told jurors.

"It's the belief he honestly held, it'sthe action he took out of a concern for his own well being.It was a terrifying, imminentthreat he perceived."

Khill was 'on the offence,' Crown says

Crown prosecutor Paul McDermott started his final argumentsby displaying a picture of a lifeless Styres lying on the muddy driveway.

HesaidStyres didn't have to die that way but he did because when Khill grabbed that shotgun and left his home, he knew in that moment he was going to kill who ever was at his 2001 GMC Sierra truck.

When Khill was on the witness stand earlier in the trial and the Crown cross-examined him, they argued Khill was angry, not scared. But Khill's alleged anger didn't come up in McDermott's closing statements.

Instead, he said the reservist was carrying out the decision to kill and ignored all other opportunities to return to his home or call 911.

"He didn't call the police he chose what was happening at every step of the way," McDermott said. "He was on the offence the whole time."

McDermott also accused Khill of lying about how Styres was standing when Khill first saw him. Khillhad previouslysaid Styres was leaning into the truck, with a bend in the hips, but during thistrial, he said Styres was only slightly leaning forward.

"There was no threat, there was no reason to shoot," McDermott said.

McDermott said despite Manishen's criticisms of witness experts, their conclusions and opinions didn't change. McDermott also argued Khill shot Styres in the chest anda second time while Styres was on his hands and knees, crawling away a point Khill has repeatedly denied.

"That second shot has nothing to do with self-defence," McDermott said.

He suggested if Khill's military training was so ingrained, he should've followed it every step of the way. But Khill going out alone, not locking the door to his home behind him, not checking the house and not doing anything to prevent the confrontation were all opposite to the training.

In the end, he said Styres was helpless when Khill shot him.

"If you come at someone within 12 feet ... with a loaded shotgun you've used to kill deer, that you know how powerful it is, and you load it with two shells and you shoot both of them in close range to a human being, that's second-degree murder," he said.

"That's an intentional killing and that's what Mr. Khill did."

After closing arguments, Ontario Superior Court Justice Andrew Goodman began briefing jurors, instructing them on what they can and can't consider when trying to reach a verdict.

Court is set to resumeat 10 a.m., where Goodman will continue instructing jurors before they are sequestered and begin deciding Khill's fate.