Case Title: State v. Brooks

Citation: 163 Vt 245, 658 A.2d 22

Docket Number: 93-010

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-01-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_BROOKS.93-010; 163 Vt 245; 658 A.2d 22

[Filed 27-Jan-1995]

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press. 


                                 No. 93-010


State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.                                            District Court of Vermont
                                                  Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

Stephen C. Brooks                                 September Term, 1994


Edward J. Cashman, J.

Scot Kline, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall Johnson,
 Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee 

Bonnie Barnes and William K. Sessions III of Sessions, Keiner, Dumont &
 Barnes, Middlebury, for defendant-appellant 


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant appeals his conviction of involuntary
manslaughter following a jury trial.  We affirm. 

     In May 1986, defendant purchased a home in Burlington that was equipped
with a driveway heater.  Hot water, heated by gas in the unit's boiler,
flowed  through a system of pipes beneath the driveway to melt snow and ice. 
The unit was located in the attached garage and could be turned on by a
switch.  Exhaust fumes from the system were supposed to exit through a vent
located on the backside of the garage. 

     On November 27, 1987, defendant turned on the driveway heater before
running an errand.  While he was gone, another occupant, Jill McDermott, and
her infant became ill from noxious fumes that had emanated from the garage. 
When defendant returned home, McDermott asked him to take her and the baby to
the hospital.  Defendant took them to the emergency room where they were
examined and released; no diagnosis was made. 

 

     Defendant thought the fumes were caused by a plumbing problem and called
C & L Plumbing and Heating (C & L).  C & L sent an employee, Ben Linden, to
inspect the heater. Linden determined that a dislodged flap in the
termination kit was preventing proper exhaust. He explained the malfunction
to defendant and told him that repairs should be made and safety features
added.  Linden then called Vermont Gas Systems (VGS) and met with one of its
employees to examine the system.  After doing some additional work on the
unit, both servicemen decided the gas should remain off until repairs were
made.  The VGS employee told McDermott the system was not safe to operate and
that she was lucky to be alive, "because it was carbon monoxide."   McDermott
relayed these comments to defendant. 

     That night, the owner of C & L called defendant and told him that the
heater had been improperly installed and VGS would call about necessary
repairs.  A VGS supervisor also called and explained the dangers of the
condition and agreed that it should be repaired.  Approximately one month
after the accident, Linden returned to defendant's home to service other
appliances. When Linden asked defendant about the heater, he admitted that
nothing had been done.  Linden told defendant he was playing "Russian
roulette," to which defendant remarked that "he would have to call the gas
company." 

     In May 1988, defendant hired a real estate agent to sell his home. 
Defendant did not mention the heater's history to the agent.  Instead,
defendant instructed the agent to turn the heater on, then off, when
demonstrating it to prospective buyers.  The heater was a highlighted feature
in agent's marketing materials.  In August 1988, the agent recommended Karl
Sklar, a part-time carpenter, to replace some rotten siding.  While Sklar was
at defendant's home, defendant told Sklar that the heater had problems and
asked Sklar if he would work on the heater.  Sklar declined because he lacked
experience with such systems. 

     In July 1988, the agent showed the house to Linda Cifarelli and her
parents, the von Albrechts, who were helping their daughter and son-in-law
purchase a home.  While touring the home, the agent explained and
demonstrated the driveway heating system by turning it on for 

 

approximately five minutes.  During their second showing, defendant, who was
present to answer questions, explained and demonstrated the driveway heater
again, but did not mention its prior problem or faulty condition.  The von
Albrechts made an offer to purchase the house which defendant accepted.  The
buyers then arranged a professional home inspection.  During the inspection,
defendant demonstrated the heater, but did not explain how it worked or
mention its history. 

     At the September closing, defendant insisted that the Cifarellis return
to the house with him for a more detailed showing because "he knew things
[the inspector] wouldn't know." Defendant showed Linda Cifarelli and her
parents the central vacuum system, the drainage system, and the driveway
heater.  When showing the heater, he told them it was not necessary to run it
for more than two hours. 

     On the evening of December 9, 1988, Linda Cifarelli and her husband,
John, turned on the driveway heater because it was snowing.  They put their
two young daughters to bed upstairs and followed shortly after.  A house
guest, Andrew Csermak, stayed awake to watch television. After a while,
Csermak became dizzy and nauseous, and eventually vomited.  Csermak cracked a
window and fell asleep on the downstairs couch.  When Csermak awoke at noon,
he was concerned because the Cifarellis were not yet awake.  He went upstairs
and discovered that only the infant daughter was still breathing.  Csermak
called 911. 

     Upon arrival, the police and firemen discovered the bodies of John and
Linda Cifarelli and their four year old daughter.  The police also found the
garage door dripping with condensation and the driveway heater running.  The
infant and Csermak were taken to the hospital and diagnosed with carbon
monoxide poisoning.  Autopsies revealed that Linda and John Cifarelli and
their daughter died of carbon monoxide poisoning.  Defendant was charged with
three counts of involuntary manslaughter by reckless endangerment and
convicted by a jury in October 1992. 

     Defendant raises several issues on appeal.  First, he challenges as
erroneous the jury 

 

instructions pertaining to (1) the mens rea of recklessness, (2) a seller's
legal duty to disclose material defects about a house, and (3) the defense of
intervening causation.  Second, he claims that his motion for acquittal was
improperly denied because there was insufficient evidence to prove the
essential elements of recklessness and the existence of his legal duty to
act.  Third, defendant contends that Vermont's manslaughter statute is
unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case. Finally, he
argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his unopposed motion
to sequester the jury. 

                         I. Jury Instructions

     Defendant's objections to the three jury instructions were not properly
preserved following the charge and are only reviewable under a plain error
standard.  State v. Percy,158 Vt. 410, 418, 612 A.2d 1119, 1125 (1992).  Jury
instructions should be viewed in their entirety and must be well balanced and
fair.  State v. Chambers, 144 Vt. 377, 382,