THE jury in a major murder trial has retired to consider its verdict - and asked a question right before being sent home.

Charlie Booth, 27, of Albert Road, in Saltaire, is accused of murdering 26-year-old Lauren Howe on July 24 last year and is on trial at Leeds Crown Court.

The 26-year-old – Booth’s partner of 11 years and who he had two children with – suffered a lacerated liver after a “scrap” at the flat they shared, which had been smashed up.

Booth claims he trashed the property hours before Ms Howe returned home and killed her with a single punch to the abdomen, which he threw “without thinking” and never intended to cause her serious harm or kill her.

Forensic pathologist Doctor Kirsten Hope said the fatal injury was the sort she usually saw when dealing with road traffic collisions or a significant fall from a first, second, or third floor building.

The prosecution said Booth must have hit “her harder than he’d ever done before” and they suggest he smashed the flat up in a “jealous rage” while Ms Howe was there – torturing her and punching and stamping on her.

But the jury are now deliberating over whether Booth acted with the intent to cause serious harm or kill Ms Howe at the very moment he inflicted unlawful violence on her.

Booth has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and so the jury – who were sent out just after 1pm on Monday – must decide if he is guilty of murder.

Judge Andrew Stubbs KC – who is presiding over the trial – summed up the case in the morning.

On the prosecution's side, they say it was man "building himself up into a furious rage, fuelled by the drink he had and drugs he had been taken, who, as he had been in the past, was obsessive, angry, when she was away from home and that as a result of the argument between him and her sister, by the time she came back to the house, uninjured, he was in such a state, angrier than he'd ever been before, hitting her harder than he'd ever done before."

He added: “They say if you hit someone as hard as that, what you're intending can only be really serious harm”.

Meanwhile, for the defence, Judge Stubbs said they say: "This was a night which as unpleasant as it was and accepted to be, with drink and drugs and violence and trust issues, that was nothing out the ordinary, all these things had happened before, the fights had happened before, the flat had been smashed up before.

“On none of those occasions had he caused her serious harm."

He added that their case is: "This occasion is not any different."

The jury came back with a question for the court just before leaving for the day.

It said: “Can an act of rage in an irrational moment be considered intent?”

The judge’s answer was yes.