Jury deliberations continue at Peter Khill murder trial

Jury deliberations at Peter Khill's second-degree murder trial have entered into a second day.

The 12-member jury - selected out of a pool of 100 on Nov. 25 - was sequestered around 1 p.m. Thursday after hearing the final parts of Justice Andrew Goodman's charge.

Deliberations continued until 8:30 p.m. Thursday evening and resumed at 10 a.m. Friday. As of 11:45 a.m., a verdict had not been reached.

The jury will decide Khill's fate and whether he had the state of mind required for murder when he shot Jonathan Styres dead with a shotgun outside his rural Binbrook home in the early morning hours of Feb. 4, 2016.

Khill has admitted to fatally shooting Styres but pleaded not guilty.

Goodman told the jurors they have three options before them - that is, to find Khill guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of manslaughter but not second-degree murder, or not guilty of either crime.

He told the jury that at the crux of its deliberations - particularly with respect to the distinction between second-degree murder and manslaughter - is determining Khill's intent and whether he had the state of mind required for murder.

Khill argued in his testimony he acted in self-defence when he fatally shot Styres, 29, after finding him rummaging through his pickup truck.

The accused said he feared for his life when Styres partially turned toward him and raised his hands just below chest-height, as if he were holding a gun. The second that happened, I was blown away. I was terrified. I immediately thought I was going to be shot," Khill testified Dec. 7.

In his closing argument Wednesday, defence lawyer Jeffery Manishen said Khill also relied on his experience as a former military reservist during the shooting, drawing on repetitive training that was drilled into him."

He did what he had to do to control the situation, an entirely reasonable thing for someone with military training," Manishen said.

The Crown, meanwhile, argued the opposite, claiming Khill's decision to grab his gun and stealthily confront Styres was the least reasonable choice out of many that were available to him.

While conceding it was wrong and unlawful for Styres to break into Khill's truck, Crown attorney Paul McDermott told jurors there was no threat" that warranted the killing. He suggested Khill could have, on many occasions, called the police, fired a warning shot or turned on the lights of his home instead of resorting to deadly force.

It was a reaction that was completely unreasonable," McDermott said in his argument.

The Crown also previously suggested Khill acted on anger - not self-defence - when he blasted Styres with his shotgun.

Twice in the week prior to the shooting, Khill testified his then-girlfriend and now-wife, Melinda Benko, told him she thought someone was trying to unlock their back door while she was home alone.

The reason you wanted to get (Styres) so quickly was because you were angry about what your wife reported to you about the door locks, right?" assistant Crown attorney Sean Doherty asked Khill during cross-examination Dec. 8.

No, I was scared," Khill said. I was worried. I was not angry."

Sebastian Bron is a reporter at The Spectator. sbron@thespec.com