Te Hiko was in a rage because his partner suggested she may have replaced him in her affections and that he'd been drinking and taken both methamphetamine and cannabis.
"He didn't care if she died, he told his brother he couldn't stop and that is the truth, he couldn't stop, didn't stop until he killed her and that is exactly what he intended to do, making him guilty of murder," Ms Gordon said.
However, Te Hiko's lawyer, Harry Edward, denied there was murderous intent.
Te Hiko denied using the pole on Ms Thompson and if she had been hit over the head with it she would have been instantly pulverised, Mr Edward said.
He questioned the evidence of blood and hair on the pole.
"What is there to say it was not placed on this item at some (other) time?"
He urged the jury to focus on the legal difference between murder and manslaughter, emphasising Te Hiko would not walk away unscathed if they decided it was manslaughter.
Justice Murray Gilbert is expected to sum up before the jury retires to deliberate tomorrow.