Amy Christine Smith (inset) is on trial in the High Court at Auckland accused of murdering Danny Bruce Taylor on his South Head property in April, 2019.
A jury will decide the fate of a woman who fatally shot her partner on his rural Auckland property thinking he was an intruder.
This morning Justice Mary Peters summarised the case, leaving it for the jury to decide if Smith intentionally fired the gun and if she was acting in self-defence.
"Everyone accepts that the shot discharged from that firearm in the very early hours of 3 April 2019 caused Mr Taylor's death," she said.
It was further alleged she was frustrated by what she perceived as Taylor's failure to be more assertive in protecting what was his and fired a deliberate shot in attack.
The prosecutor had submitted this was borne out in the letters she wrote from prison in which she said she thought she was "shooting an intruder".
In the defence case there was no plan to take action, rather Taylor planned on talking to the people they believed would rob them to try avoid any situation.
Further, the defence says Smith thought there was someone inside and feeling something coming towards her, she moved backwards and the gun went off.
"Not aimed. Not lifted to the shoulder. But a defensive response to what she perceived as an attack."
If the jury deemed it was reasonably possible Smith fired in self-defence, they would have to decide if she used more force than was reasonable.
"So you stand in Ms Smith's shoes," Justice Peters said.
In the circumstances as Smith believed them to be, the judge said, did discharging the firearm constitute excessive force?
"What options were realistically available to her? How imminent was the threat?"
In the Crown case, it was not reasonable for her to fire that rifle.
"Yes, she thought there was an intruder but she didn't know if they had a weapon and they might have been as much as 10 metres away," Justice Peters said.
The prosecutor had suggested she could have said: "Stop I have gun."
The defence replied that was "nonsense" as it would have given away her position - in her lawyer's words: "If you said that you could be a dead duck."
Justice Peters said the defence case, arguing it was reasonable to have fired, included that someone was inside the house in the middle of the night and "not there for a good reason".