Jason Scott Pearson cried repeatedly from the witness stand Thursday, insisting that he never intended to kill Utah Highway Patrol trooper Dennis Lund.

But his emotional pleas weren't accepted by his victim's family."I don't buy that at all," said Brenda Lund, the slain trooper's widow.

Does she believe he intended to shoot her husband and at other troopers? "Absolutely, I've always known that in my heart," she said.

Although Pearson's sincerity was questioned by Lund's family, its effect on the jury remains unknown. Jurors were expected to begin deliberating Pearson's fate Friday afternoon.

Pearson, 20, faces charges of aggravated murder and four counts of attempted murder for fatally shooting Lund and firing at other officers during a June 1993 chase on I-70.

Repeatedly Thursday, Pearson said he couldn't remember the details surrounding the chase - including his initial, failed attempt to fire at a passing officer.

"I don't know what happened," he said. "I wish I would have (pulled over). I don't know why I didn't."

The state and Pearson's co-hort, George Kennedy, allege the Indiana youth rested a 20-gauge shotgun on the window of the duo's stolen car and pulled the trigger as a UHP car passed, but the gun didn't fire.

Pearson later went on to fire at the car again, this time successfully. But it wouldn't be until several miles later that he would reach for a .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle and again shoot at officers, fatally wounding Lund.

Prosecutors got Pearson to admit some knowledge of weapons, including having taken a hunter's safety course. Although Pearson repeatedly emphasized he wasn't aiming when he fired each time, again prosecutors were able to verify that Pearson recognized the potential danger of pointing any gun toward a person.

That theme of not recalling the details of the chase was consistent throughout Pearson's testimony.

When prosecutor Creighton Horton told Pearson he had several miles of pursuit to consider his options and decide whether to stop or whether to shoot at officers, Pearson denied the scenario.

"I never thought about what I was going to do," he said, later adding, "I don't know why I fired the gun."

Prosecutors want to prove that Pearson was aware of his actions and the potential consequences when he fired at the officers, and that he intended to kill Lund. Evidence of such intent could make Pearson guilty of the aggravated murder charge, a capital offense.

But Pearson continuously repeated that he wasn't aiming when he shot, denying he intended to kill either Lund or any of the pursing officers.

"I didn't want to kill nobody," he told the jury. "I guess I was scared."

He later reiterated, "I never fired at a person. I didn't point or aim at officer Lund."

In the first half of his testimony, Pearson appealed to the jury that he was sorry for his actions and the resulting tragedy for Lund's family and friends.

"I'm going to wake up every day for the rest of my life, knowing that I took a father from his children, a husband from his wife, a son from his parents," he said. "I don't know what happened. I wish I knew. . . . It hurts not knowing why. That causes so much pain, to family and friends of officer Lund."

He admitted to being scared to pull over. Why? "Lots of reasons, I guess. I took gas and didn't pay for it. Some of it I guess was back home, I got in trouble."

Despite run-ins with police in Indiana, Pearson said he ironically has friends whose fathers work as police and he has respect for the law - a claim prosecutors attacked in an emotional exchange.

"To you, (Lund) was just another cop - a faceless cop chasing you," Horton said.

"I knew it was a person . . . he was just an officer doing his job," Pearson replied.

"And for doing his job, you killed him," Horton countered.

"I don't deny that it happened. But I didn't mean for it to happen," Pearson said.

"Are those tears for trooper Lund or yourself?" Horton demanded.

"They're for his family, for him, for his friends . . . and because I have to live with what I did, yes," Pearson answered.

The trial continued Friday with opening and closing arguments scheduled in the morning, before Pearson's fate would be turned over for the jury to deliberate.