A jury will continue its deliberations today over whether three men are guilty of murder and aggravated robbery after the shooting of a Taupo drug dealer.
Scott John Henry, 48, was fatally shot in the chest when the three accused stormed his rural home demanding drugs and cash.
Whakapumautanga "Cookie" Clarke, 25, Cody Paul Griffin, 25, and Daniel George Chase, 22, all from Taupo, each deny charges of murder and aggravated robbery of Henry's green backpack at his Whangamata Rd home on July 20 last year.
Clarke is alleged to be the "principal offender" as he had admitted shooting Henry, but that it was an "accident".
Griffin and Chase are charged as secondary parties to the murder.
After summing up the case, Justice Sarah Katz sent the jury off to begin their deliberations at 4.15pm.
At 5pm they hadn't reached a verdict and were then released and ordered to return and continue their deliberations from 10am Friday.
Earlier, she told the jury of four women and seven men that although Griffin and Chase didn't shoot Henry, their charge related to them being accused of knowing that Henry getting shot and killed was a "probable consequence" of committing the aggravated robbery.
It didn't matter if Clarke didn't set out to kill or injury anyone, they had to focus on his actions "in the course of pursuing the robbery".
If they don't find that Clarke had murderous intent, the jury can find Clarke guilty of manslaughter as he had admitted pulling the trigger.
However, neither Chase or Griffin can be guilty of murder or manslaughter if Clarke is found not guilty of murder.
However, Chase or Griffin can still be found guilty of manslaughter. Justice Katz said as Clarke is the principal offender, the remaining pair cannot be found guilty of a more serious offence than him.
The jury also need to decide whether the group are guilty of aggravated robbery.
She also urged them to put aside any feelings of prejudice or sympathy, either for Henry's family or the fact the accused were all gang members.
"They are not on trial for being gang members … or whether they are good guys or whether you would have them over for dinner or babysit your children."
Earlier, the court was told the shooting was a "low-level plan to shake the money tree", by Griffin's lawyer John Munro.
Munro told the jury there was not enough evidence that his client knew there would be a "probable consequence" that the shotgun would either kill or injure Henry.
Griffin drove the group to the house and also picked up an old shotgun he had stored at a friend's house, just prior to heading to Henry's property.
But Munro said it was a "reasonable assumption" to take a firearm as a "precautionary measure".
Chase's lawyer, Bill Lawson, said there wasn't enough evidence to prove that his client knew there would be a "probable consequence" of Henry being shot and killed.
He urged the jury to remember witness Natasha Telford's evidence and how both she and Chase were ordered out of the vehicle by the older two accused.
"Think about the dynamics … think about what he may or may not have been included in … he was instructed to get out of the car with Natasha Telford. It's quite an important aspect not to involve him in.
"It's a significant part of this case that's alleged. But he's not involved, because he didn't have a choice about that."
He said his client was not guilty of both murder and manslaughter. However, told the jury it was up to them to be sure that he was guilty of aggravated robbery.
Clarke's lawyer, Max Simpkins of Rotorua, said his client admitted shooting Henry but it was an "accident".
"The evidence tells you that it was dark ... that there was no light on the shed ... it was but winter and it was cloudy overhead. It was raining, heavily. These are the things that you need to look at as to whether there was any prospect of an accident."
Henry's Whangamata Rd property was also foreign to his client, he didn't know his way round.
"He's not guilty of murder. Because I want you to convict him of manslaughter, because he didn't know that it was likely to cause his death, because it was an accident.
"Hold him responsible. Find him guilty of manslaughter."
He also left it to the jury to decide his client's fate over the aggravated robbery charge, offering no submissions.