State v. Cushman
329 A.2d 648, 133 Vt. 121, 1974 Vt. LEXIS 299 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a statute proscribing reckless endangerment, the act of knowingly pointing a firearm at another person creates a conclusive legal presumption of both recklessness and danger, regardless of whether the firearm was actually loaded or whether the actor believed it to be loaded.
Facts:
- A woman, Mrs. Aldrich, called the state police due to a disturbance at the home she shared with the defendant.
- In response, Trooper McDonald went to the defendant's home in the evening.
- An argument subsequently occurred between the defendant and Trooper McDonald.
- During the argument, the defendant took a firearm from a rack in the kitchen.
- The defendant then pointed the firearm in the direction of Trooper McDonald.
- The defendant later claimed that the weapon was an unloaded antique.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged the defendant with recklessly endangering another person under 13 V.S.A. § 1025.
- The defendant was tried by a jury in the District Court of Vermont, Unit No. 4, Caledonia Circuit (the trial court).
- The jury found the defendant guilty.
- The defendant appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a conviction under 13 V.S.A. § 1025 for recklessly endangering another person by pointing a firearm require the state to prove that the firearm was actually loaded?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
No. A conviction under 13 V.S.A. § 1025 does not require proof that the firearm was actually loaded. The court held that the plain language of the statute, which states that 'Recklessness and danger shall be presumed when a person knowingly points a firearm at or in the direction of another, whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded,' creates a conclusive presumption. The legislative intent was to proscribe the inherently dangerous act of pointing a firearm, regardless of its condition. To require proof that the gun was loaded would lead to an absurd result, as a victim has no way of knowing and the 'most dangerous weapon is the ‘unloaded gun’.'
Dissenting - Daley, J.
Yes. A person cannot be placed in an objective state of danger by an unloaded firearm, even if they are placed in fear. The dissent argued that the statute should create a rebuttable presumption of danger, not a conclusive one. The act of pointing the firearm should presume danger, but the defendant should be permitted to present evidence that the gun was, in fact, unloaded for the jury to consider. The trial court's instruction that the gun's loaded status was of 'no importance' constituted reversible error because it prevented the jury from considering a factor essential to the element of danger.
Analysis:
This decision interprets the statutory presumption in Vermont's reckless endangerment law as conclusive rather than rebuttable, effectively making the pointing of a firearm a strict liability offense once the act is proven. By removing the state's burden to prove the firearm was loaded, the court shifts the legal focus from the actual ability to cause harm to the inherent danger and terror created by the act itself. This precedent strengthens prohibitions against firearm threats by significantly limiting available defenses and underscoring the principle that brandishing a firearm is a dangerous act per se, which will likely influence how similar statutes are interpreted and prosecuted in the future.
