FILE - In this Aug. 14, 2014, file photo, Seth Mazzaglia looks back at his mother as he is escorted out of the Strafford County Superior Court in Dover, N.H. Mazzaglia was sentenced to life without parole for killing University of New Hampshire student Elizabeth Marriott. On Wednesday Nov. 16, 2016, Mazzaglia's appeal was heard before the state's Supreme Court. (AP Photo/Jim Cole/FILE)
FILE - In this Aug. 14, 2014, file photo, Seth Mazzaglia looks back at his mother as he is escorted out of the Strafford County Superior Court in Dover, N.H. Mazzaglia was sentenced to life without parole for killing University of New Hampshire student Elizabeth Marriott. On Wednesday Nov. 16, 2016, Mazzaglia's appeal was heard before the state's Supreme Court. (AP Photo/Jim Cole/FILE)

Concord — The New Hampshire Supreme Court is deciding whether a man convicted of killing a University of New Hampshire student should get a new trial based on his unsuccessful attempt to tell jurors about her sexual past.

Elizabeth “Lizzi” Marriott, of Westborough, Mass., was a 19-year-old sophomore when she was killed in 2012. Prosecutors say Seth Mazzaglia strangled her and dumped her body in a river, but his defense team argued at trial that she died accidentally during a consensual sex act.

Arguing his appeal on Wednesday, Mazzaglia’s attorney said barring evidence of Marriott’s past sexual interests during the trial meant jurors wouldn’t accept that she could have consented to the act in question.

“The jurors in this trial got two very vivid impressions. One is a vivid impression of the sexual techniques involved in the defense theory of what happened — and the state described those as dangerous and brutal and involved being tied down. The second vivid impression the jurors were going to get in this trial was about Miss Marriott and her extraordinary and admirable personal qualities,” attorney Christopher Johnson said.

“The concern here is the juxtaposition of those two vivid impressions would create cognitive dissonance — it would crowd out the possibility that Miss Marriott could possibly have any interest in (such) activity,” he said.

Justice Carol Ann Conboy appeared skeptical.

“You would say if the jury could consider that she had interest in these activities, it makes it more likely that the defendant didn’t murder her? That’s the link I’m having difficulty with,” she said.

The state argued that allowing the evidence would have violated the state’s rape shield law.

The court likely will issue its opinion in three to six months.