## Facts

- DG, age fourteen, lived in a state placement home with three other boys.
- DG went into the bedrooms of two boys who were playing PlayStation and used a lighter to ignite the spray from an aerosol deodorant can, creating a flame.
- One boy testified that he felt heat from the flame but otherwise ignored DG and kept playing.
- The other boy testified that he felt some heat, told DG to stop, and then continued playing without interruption.
- Both boys described DG’s conduct as “fooling around.”
- DG testified that he was “just fooling around,” did not think he would hurt anyone, and did not intend to hurt anyone.
- DG also testified that he had previously sprayed and lit the aerosol on his own hands and pants without feeling pain, and that he did not know the can could explode.
- Another boy (M.S.) also ignited the aerosol spray, but the State did not charge him.
- After the home’s caregiver learned of the incident and contacted the responsible agency, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging reckless endangerment under 13 V.S.A. § 1025.
- Following an evidentiary hearing, the Washington Family Court adjudicated DG delinquent, finding that DG consciously disregarded the danger and “knew” the can could blow up.
- DG appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DG acted “recklessly” under 13 V.S.A. § 1025 by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct placed others in danger of death or serious bodily injury.
2. Whether the family court erred by applying an adult measure of recklessness rather than a youth-based measure (not reached).

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the delinquency adjudication for reckless endangerment.
- The Court held that the evidence did not support a finding that DG was actually aware of, and consciously disregarded, a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death or serious bodily injury.
- Because reversal was required on sufficiency grounds, the Court did not address DG’s argument about using an adult rather than youth-based measure of recklessness.

## Legal Principles

- Under 13 V.S.A. § 1025, reckless endangerment requires proof that a person recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place another in danger of death or serious bodily injury.
- Vermont follows the Model Penal Code definition of “recklessly”: the actor must consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the prohibited result will occur.
- Recklessness includes a subjective component (actual awareness of the risk and a conscious decision to ignore it); proof that the actor merely should have known of the risk shows negligence, not recklessness.
- In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, but the findings still must be supported by evidence that establishes each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A factfinder may draw reasonable inferences, but an inference that the juvenile “knew” of a specific grave danger (such as an aerosol can exploding) must be grounded in evidence, not speculation.

## Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court reversed DG’s delinquency adjudication because the record did not support the family court’s finding that DG subjectively understood he was creating a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death or serious bodily injury and then chose to ignore that risk; at most, the evidence showed immature horseplay and a failure to appreciate the seriousness of the danger, which is not enough to prove reckless endangerment under 13 V.S.A. § 1025.


In re DG, Juvenile, 2003 WL 25746107 (2003)