The fate of two lovers accused of hatching a plan to kill their spouses is in the hands of a jury.

Angela Nicholson and Curtis Vey are each facing two counts of conspiring to commit murder.

Chief Justice Martel Popescul instructed the jury Friday morning. He said the jury must decide if Nicholson and Vey’s discussion to kill their spouses was harmless ranting and fantasy, or an agreement. To find the accused guilty, there has to be a completed agreement to commit murder and an intention to put that design into effect, he said. The jury also has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

It all started when Vey’s wife Brigitte became suspicious her husband was cheating on her after she caught him texting in the tub. She secretly taped him on an iPod while she was at work on July 1, 2013. When she listened to the recording, she heard the accused discuss plans to kill her in a house fire and Nicholson’s husband, Jim Taylor, by drugging him.

In the recording, Vey tells Nicholson to wear gloves to cover her tracks. They discuss whether it’s better to burn Vey’s house down during the day or night, and how to get sleeping pills to put in Taylor’s coffee.

Brigitte testified she played the recording for her family, confronted her husband and went to police. Vey and Nicholson were arrested a few days later on July 6, 2013.

During the trial, court heard Vey tell police in an interview that he knew his wife was recording him. She had been suspicious of him on June 30, he said. When she got up extra early the next morning, he assumed it was so she could set up the recording. He also told police she had taped him a handful of times before and even called him once to turn the recording off.

Vey said in a police interview that he didn’t shut off the tape that morning because he wasn’t planning on being in the house that day and forgot about it later. He said that although he and Nicholson had talked about the plan a couple of times, he wouldn’t have been able to follow through.

Court watched an interview with Nicholson in which she told police it was Vey’s idea to burn down his house by starting a grease fire on the stove. She also said the plan was for Vey to put sleeping pills in his wife’s coffee. He would go to the Crop Production show as an alibi and she would start the grease fire, she said.

Police testified during the trial that Nicholson had searched for information about grease fires on the Internet. She told officers in an interview that she had looked them up because she dealt with them at work.

Both Vey and Nicholson spent almost a day and a half in police cells with undercover officers. It was Vey’s 28th wedding anniversary.

Vey said he would have never been able to follow through with the plan.

“I’m just not built that way,” he said.

Nicholson also told her undercover cellmate she thought she was too much of a chicken to carry it out.

“You say things out of anger, but nothing that you intend to do."

Neither of the accused took the stand in the case.

In closing arguments, Crown prosecutor Lori O’Connor said Vey and Nicholson’s conversation was not idle talk between two lovers, but a well-thought out plan with chilling details. She said the plan would end their marriage troubles and bring them peace.

O’Connor also argued that it showed how seriously Nicholson was taking the plan when she searched for grease fires on the Internet. Nicholson’s defence lawyer Ron Piche countered that police had testified the search was only about five minutes long. He reminded the jury she had told police she dealt with grease fires at work.

Piche described Nicholson as a doting, hard-working mother and asked if the jury believed she could have committed two counts of cold-blooded murder.

Piche also argued that there was overwhelming evidence to support the idea that Vey knew he was being recorded by his wife on Canada Day. He pointed out that the plot wasn’t supposed to be carried out until at least November 1, 2013, and Brigitte would have learned about the plan well before it happened because of the recording.

Vey’s defence lawyer Aaron Fox agreed Vey knew he was being recorded. Fox asked why Vey would invite Nicholson into his house if he knew his wife was monitoring him. He argued the logical explanation was because Vey was lashing out. It was to teach somebody a lesson “and unfortunately has brought us to this point,” he said. Vey didn’t expect his family to take it to police, he said.

Fox also pointed out that although several devices were seized from Vey’s house, police didn’t find any evidence to support the charges after weeks of analysis.

He said that although Nicholson and Vey’s conversation was offensive and stupid, it wasn’t criminal because they had no intention of following through.

Fox also said that Vey always maintained that although he had said things he should have, he never intended to follow through and wouldn’t have killed anybody.

Fourteen jurors sat through the trial, but two were randomly discharged Friday morning. Five women and seven men are sequestered until they reach a unanimous verdict.

The judge told the jury Friday morning that there are four questions for them to answer: Did each of the accused conspire to kill each of the alleged targets? Vey and Nicholson can receive different verdicts.

Popescul said the jury must decide whether Nicholson and Vey had a discussion or an agreement. There could be a lot of detail in discussion without actually having an agreement to follow through.

The jury deliberated until about 9:30 p.m. Friday night and started again at 9:00 a.m. Saturday morning.