A jury has retired to consider its verdicts in the trial of a Maketū father accused of murdering his daughter.
The jury must decide whether Aaron George Izett, 38, was insane when he killed his 2-year-old daughter Nevaeh Jahkaya Whatukura Ager between March 20 and 21 last year and assaulted three other people.
The Crown has alleged in the High Court at Rotorua that Izett's "meth rage" led to him to kill his child and the assaults, and that there was "no evidence of any mental disorder".
Police found Nevaeh's body on the tidal flats at Little Waihi, Maketū on March 21 last year.
Pathologist Rexson Tse gave evidence that Nevaeh suffered multiple bruises and abrasions to her body caused by a weapon or weapons, and there could have been up to 70-80 blows.
Nevaeh had injuries to her buttocks, limbs, her face and eight to ten blows to her head. She also had neck injuries, which indicated the "degree of force".
The Crown told the jury that after Izett assaulted his daughter he placed her naked body face-down in the water on mudflats and put two large boulders or rocks, on top of her.
The pathologist said Nevaeh drowned but may have survived if not placed in the water.
The defence has argued Izett lacked the necessary murderous intent and should be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Izett also denies wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, assault and injuring with intent to injure.
The assault charge relates to allegedly punching Nevaeh's great-grandfather, John Sturgess, on March 20, 2019. The two other charges related to alleged assaults of between March 18 and March 21 last year including a police constable bitten on the arm while Izett was being arrested and Jacob Reid, a neighbour in Maketū.
In her summing up today Justice Christine Gordon QC told the jury they must deliver separate verdicts for each of the four charges Izett has pleaded not guilty to.
She said this meant the jury needed to carefully consider and weigh up all of the evidence for each charge separately.
Justice Gordon also said the Crown must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, which meant the jury must be sure of Izett's guilt.
"The Crown must prove intent but does not have to prove a motive for the offending."
Justice Gordon said in terms of the murder charge the jury had five possible verdicts to consider: either guilty of murder or not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, guilty of manslaughter or not guilty of manslaughter by reason of insanity, or not guilty.
The Crown also had to prove that Izett intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Reid on March 18, 2019, and intentionally wounded him.
For the other two assault charges, the jury must be satisfied with Izett's intentions at the time of his alleged offending.
Justice Gordon said in terms of the assault charges the jury must deliver one of three verdicts - either guilty or not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity.
She said in the case of the alleged assault of John Sturges, the jury must be sure that the Crown had proved Izett intentionally punched him in the face and on the arm.
In considering the defence of insanity, the jury must be sure the defence had proved on the balance of probabilities that it was more likely than not that Izett had been suffering from a disease of the mind at the time, Justice Gordon said, and that Izett did not know what he was doing was morally wrong within the commonly accepted standard of right and wrong, she said.
She said Izett's diagnosis of suffering from a poly-substance disorder was not a disease of the mind and voluntary methamphetamine intoxication was not a defence.
In her summing up Justice Gordon referred to Crown prosecutor QC Kieran Raftery's closing statement that the pathology showed there could be no other intention by Izett other than to kill his daughter and placing rocks on top of her body completed his intentional act.
She also reminded the jury of defence lawyer Julie-Anne Kincade QC's submission that Izett's use of methamphetamine alone did not explain his strange behaviour.
Justice Gordon also referred to Kincade's defence that according to witness reports Izett was suffering a psychosis based on his erratic behaviour and him being out of touch with reality - including from police officers who visited the property the day Nevaeh was found.
Kincade QC told the jury yesterday that it was clear Izett had been suffering from a disease of mind at the time of his alleged offending.
The trial continues.