Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

State v. Brooks

Vermont Supreme Court
658 A.2d 22 (1995)


Stephen Brooks (defendant) owned a home equipped with a driveway heater. Exhaust fumes from the heater exited through a vent in the garage. In November 1987, two other home occupants—Jill McDermott and McDermott’s child—became ill from exhaust fumes that had escaped into the house. Brooks called a plumber and an inspector from Vermont Gas Systems (VGS) to examine the system. Both concluded that a bad flap was preventing proper ventilation and that the gas should not be turned on until the flap was repaired. According to the VGS inspector, McDermott was lucky to be alive. Brooks put the house up for sale without repairing the heater or disclosing the defect to the real estate agent. The Cifarelli family purchased the home in July 1988. One night in December, the Cifarellis turned on the driveway heater and put the two Cifarelli children to bed. The next morning, it was discovered that all the Cifarellis except one of the children had died in bed from carbon-monoxide poisoning. Brooks was charged with involuntary manslaughter by reckless endangerment. At trial, Brooks claimed that, because Brooks believed that the heater was fixed when the house had been sold, Brooks did not have the intent required for involuntary manslaughter by reckless endangerment. Several witnesses testified that Brooks knew the heater was defective when Brooks sold the home. Brooks was convicted as charged. On appeal, Brooks argued that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on both recklessness and criminal negligence without distinguishing the intent required by each. Brooks claimed that because recklessness requires a conscious disregard of substantial risk and criminal negligence requires only that a defendant should have known of the risk, the jury might have convicted Brooks under the less-stringent negligence standard.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Allen, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 497,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 497,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial