Emotive arguments about domestic violence were put to the jury hearing Andrina Tamara Smith's murder trial yesterday by lawyers on both sides of the case.

Senior Crown Counsel Carrington Mahoney argued that while it was wrong of Smith's boyfriend Edward Allan (Sleepy) Dill to hit her, this did not excuse her stabbing him to death.

Smith accepts that she fatally wounded Mr. Dill in the neck at her Devonshire apartment in the early hours of October 16 2006, but denies murder.

In emotional testimony earlier this week she claimed to have acted in self defence after he punched, slapped and tried to choke her.

The accused woman explained she swung at her boyfriend with the first kitchen utensil that came to hand as he pressed her up against a counter in the kitchen. She claimed that she never meant to hurt or kill him.

According to her defence lawyer Charles Richardson yesterday, the wound she inflicted to a major artery in Mr. Dill's neck was the result of a wild swing from a frightened woman under attack.

"I would suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that you could not hit that artery intentionally - it's a matter for you - even if you were an assassin trained by the Navy Seals!" he argued.

However, Senior Crown Counsel Carrington Mahoney outlined a different version of events on behalf of the prosecution.

He told the jury that Mr. Dill slapped Smith during an argument and she reacted by getting a knife from the kitchen.

He claimed that the enraged woman then plunged the blade through her bedroom door and into her boyfriend's neck while he was inside the room trying to block her out - and holding their one-year-old daughter in his arms.

In his closing address to the jury yesterday, Mr. Mahoney urged the nine women and three men to put emotion aside and assess the evidence in a cool manner.

"You ought not to let any sympathy or prejudice affect your finding of facts.

"Many tears fell during this trial. Some of you shed tears. You must not let any sympathy for the dead man or sympathy for the accused affect your finding of fact," he told them.

He later added: "This is not a case of gender. This is not men verses women. It's not a gender case, it's a murder case."

The prosecutor argued that Smith intended to kill Mr. Dill or cause him serious bodily harm, and this was not a case of provocation or self defence.

"She was in such a rage. Such a rage that she was going to get him at all costs. We are not saying he was right to beat her. We are not saying that. But then again, two wrongs don't make a right," he said.

However, Mr. Richardson told the jury: "You might consider that there's little doubt that both she and that child will have to reflect daily on the events that happened there that evening. They both lost somebody. The child lost her father, she lost her boyfriend....there's no evidence that she intended to kill that man. This is self defence."

He said Smith could not be blamed for staying with Mr. Dill, despite what she has described as a history of him being violent previously during their four year relationship.

"Consider how easy it would have been for her to just get up and go. They just had a baby. It's not easy," he claimed.

"Unfortunately this relationship was marred by periods of domestic violence and on this night, Mr. Dill sadly lost his life as a result of an episode of domestic violence."

He demonstrated with the wooden door and knife in question that - in his view - the prosecution case does not add up.

He said although there are seven stab marks in the door, none coincide with what the prosecution say about the angle of Mr. Dill's injury and his possible stance behind the door.

Mr. Richardson argued that if Smith really is lying as Mr. Mahoney has claimed, it would have been simple for her to tell the jury her boyfriend damaged the door. Instead, she told the panel that she has no idea how it came to be damaged.

Puisne Justice Carlisle Greaves is expected to sum up the evidence and send the jury out to consider its verdict on Monday.