Court Opinion

ID: 9367674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 16:07:59.632272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:02.201945
License: Public Domain

February 1, 2023

                                                     Supreme Court
                                                     No. 2020-274-C.A.
                                                     (P2/16-2326A)

                   State              :

                    v.                :

            Carlton Vose.             :

            NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
            before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
            are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
            Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
            Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or
            Email:      opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov,     of     any
            typographical or other formal errors in order that
            corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
                                                         Supreme Court

                                                        No. 2020-274-C.A.
                                                        (P2/16-2326A)

                 State                  :

                  v.                    :

            Carlton Vose.               :

      Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

                                  OPINION

      Justice Goldberg, for the Court. This case came before the Supreme Court

on November 2, 2022, on appeal by the defendant, Carlton Vose (defendant or

Vose), from a Superior Court judgment of conviction on six counts of neglecting an

adult with severe impairments, in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-5-12.1 The defendant

was sentenced to concurrent five-year sentences at the Adult Correctional

Institutions, with two years to serve and the balance suspended, with probation, a

$1,000 fine, counseling upon release from prison, and a no-contact order. On appeal,

Vose raises several issues: (1) whether § 11-5-12 is ambiguous as written; (2)

whether medical testimony is necessary to establish “severe impairment” under §

1
 We begin by acknowledging that there may be circumstances in which the care of
an adult with severe impairments can be challenging and outside the parameters of
G.L. 1956 § 11-5-12. This is not such a case.
                                            -1-
11-5-12; (3) whether the trial justice misapplied the law when he denied defendant’s

motion for a new trial; and (4) whether the state violated Rule 16 of the Superior

Court Rules of Criminal Procedure by failing to provide a witness list before the first

day of trial and then by calling less than half of the witnesses who were identified.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior

Court.

                                   Facts and Travel

         The record reveals the following. After living in Florida for many years,

defendant returned to Rhode Island in 2014 in order to care for his mother, Pauline

Vose, who was suffering from dementia and tended to wander.2 He previously had

been granted Pauline’s power of attorney in August 2013. Pauline and defendant

shared a home at 314 Kenyon Avenue, Pawtucket, Rhode Island.3 The defendant

was a licensed attorney in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, working for the

Department of Veterans Affairs.

         At trial, Anabel Reyes testified that on January 29, 2015, she was working her

shift as assistant manager at the Walgreens Pharmacy on Cottage Street, Pawtucket,

when Pauline entered the store. Pauline appeared disoriented and upset. Pawtucket

2
 Throughout this opinion, we refer to Pauline Vose by her first name solely for the
sake of clarity. No disrespect is intended.
3
    We pause to note that Pauline passed away in April 2022.
                                            -2-
Police Department Patrol Officer Ronald Jones responded to the Walgreens for a

well-being check after Reyes called the police to alert them of her plight.

      Officer Jones testified that he spoke with Pauline, who was able to recite her

name to him when asked. According to Officer Jones, Pauline appeared somewhat

disoriented and confused; she was wearing a robe that was not appropriate for the

cold weather at the time. Pauline was transported by Officer Jones to her home on

Kenyon Avenue, about 0.7 miles away from the Walgreens. This encounter was

among numerous incidents of Pauline wandering outside the home in a confused and

frightened mental state. Several such incidents formed the basis for this prosecution.

      Officer Jones and Pauline were met at her door by defendant. The defendant

told Officer Jones that he was unaware that Pauline had left the home and informed

Officer Jones that she was in the early stages of dementia. After escorting Pauline

into her home, Officer Jones left the scene.

      Pawtucket Police Department Patrol Officer Jeffrey Furtado testified that,

days later, on February 9, 2015, he received a dispatch to conduct a well-being check

at Sam’s Food Mart on Kenyon Avenue in Pawtucket. Officer Furtado observed an

older female, later identified as Pauline, wearing a green sweatsuit, and standing

outside of the store. Officer Furtado concluded that Pauline was not dressed in

garments suitable for the outdoors, as it had snowed the previous evening, and the

temperature that day was between twenty and twenty-five degrees. Because of the

                                          -3-
weather and the fact that the sidewalks were still not cleared, he transported Pauline

back to her home, about 300 to 500 yards away from Sam’s Food Mart. Pauline and

Officer Furtado entered the home together. According to the officer, the home

appeared cluttered and smelled of animal feces and urine. After Officer Furtado

announced that a Pawtucket police officer was in the home, defendant opened the

second-floor door at the top of the stairwell and acknowledged him. The defendant

stated that he was unaware that Pauline had left the home, and he informed Officer

Furtado that Pauline was suffering from dementia.

      Later that same evening, Allen Desjarlais was plowing Kenyon Avenue for

the City of Pawtucket, when Pauline approached his truck waving her arms and

banging on his window. Pauline twice advanced towards the truck, asking for a ride.

Because it was snowy, dark, and cold, Desjarlais testified, he called his supervisor

and requested that the police be called.        Pawtucket Patrol Officer Geoffrey

Metfooney responded to the scene at approximately 6:00 p.m. to conduct a well-

being check. Upon arrival, Officer Metfooney located Pauline standing in the

roadway and Desjarlais standing nearby. Because Pauline appeared confused as to

her whereabouts, Officer Metfooney escorted her back to her house, which was a

short distance away. No one was home when they arrived. Officer Metfooney called

defendant and left him a voice mail alerting him to the situation.          A report

                                          -4-
documenting the events was forwarded to the Pawtucket Police Department Elderly

Affairs Division.

      Although the record discloses several more police calls for well-being checks

over the ensuing months, the next incident introduced at trial occurred on September

18, 2015. Pawtucket Patrol Officer James Leach testified that on that day he

responded to a well-being check on Kenyon Avenue, where he met with Kathleen

Lavery, a neighbor of Pauline. Ms. Lavery contacted the Pawtucket police after

encountering Pauline, who was wet, crying, and shaking. Pauline informed Lavery

that defendant had turned the yard faucet on her when she asked for food. Ms.

Lavery indicated that Pauline was consistently wandering the neighborhood in soiled

clothing, was constantly hungry, and on that day, she was in fear. Officer Leach

understood from his conversation with Lavery that Pauline was afraid of her son

calling.

      Officer Leach then proceeded to Pauline’s home, where she answered his

knock at the door. Pauline appeared disheveled, wearing wet, dirty clothing. The

house was also disorderly, and the only food that he could locate were a couple of

packages of frozen corn and dog food. Pauline did not want Officer Leach to contact

defendant and appeared to be very fearful that he would do so. Officer Leach then

spoke with defendant, who had been on the second floor of the residence. The

defendant told him that he does not keep food in the house because Pauline would

                                         -5-
feed all the animals in the neighborhood. He also informed Officer Leach that

Pauline was suffering from dementia.

      Sergeant Joseph Skahan testified that, the following month, on October 24,

2015, he was directed to the intersection of Benefit Street, Kenyon Avenue, and

Mendon Avenue, where he encountered Pauline standing in the roadway. She was

wearing thin clothing that was inappropriate for the weather and appeared disheveled

and unsteady on her feet. Pauline was confused and unable to provide basic

identifying information. Sergeant Skahan took Pauline to her house, where she

gained entry without a key. The house was in a disorderly state, with garbage and

open bags of animal food throughout, and urine-soaked newspapers on the floor.

Because Pauline appeared hungry, Sgt. Skahan attempted to find food in the house

for her to eat, but he located only condiments in the refrigerator and open bags of

animal food in the cabinets. He sought out a phone but could only find one that was

not plugged into the wall due to a broken phone jack.

      Sergeant Skahan attempted to contact defendant, unsuccessfully, through

dispatch, leaving a message at about 1:30 p.m. in order to speak with him about the

situation. Sergeant Skahan then called for a rescue for Pauline, at which time she

was transported to the hospital. Vose contacted Sgt. Skahan around 3:00 p.m.; as

Sgt. Skahan began to describe his mother’s condition, Vose became belligerent,

demanding that the police stay out of his house and leave his mother alone. After

                                         -6-
defendant was told that his mother was found wandering the streets, his response

was that it was not a crime to do so.

        Finally, on November 3, 2015, Martha Crippen,4 then an elder abuse

investigator for the Office of Attorney General, responded to Pauline’s home with

Sergeant Christopher Dupont of the Pawtucket Police Department, a caseworker

from the Division of Elderly Affairs,5 and a staff member from Gateway Health.

Upon arrival, they found Pauline wandering the street, dressed in dirty clothing that

was inadequate for the frigid weather. Although she was very close to her home,

she was unsure where she lived.

        Pauline was brought to her house, which was found to be untidy with the smell

of urine permeating the air. The overall condition of the home was deplorable,

according to the witnesses. The group found a cup of cold coffee, a piece of cold

toast, and some loose pills on the stove; some juice, condiments, and cat food were

in the refrigerator; but there was no substantial food in the home. Pauline’s bedroom

was cluttered with articles of clothing and other items, making it difficult to navigate.

Ms. Crippen determined that Pauline had been sleeping on the living room couch,

which was also in disarray. Sergeant Dupont knocked on the door to the second

4
 The record contains various spellings of the witness’s name. In this opinion, we
adopt the spelling used in the documents attached to the Criminal Information.
5
    The name of this department was changed to the Office of Healthy Aging in 2019.
                                           -7-
floor, which was locked, but there was no response. Pauline was then removed from

the home and transported to Memorial Hospital for care; eventually she was admitted

to that hospital and never returned to the Kenyon Avenue residence.

      On August 3, 2016, defendant was charged by criminal information with

seven counts of neglecting an adult with severe impairments in accordance with

§ 11-5-12.6 Several pretrial motions were filed in this case, and the matter proceeded

to trial on December 2, 2019. At the close of the state’s case, after the testimony of

eleven witnesses, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts. The

trial justice reserved decision. The defense rested on December 9, 2019, defendant

renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal, and the trial justice once more

reserved his decision. On December 12, 2019, the jury found defendant guilty of

the six remaining counts. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial on December

19, 2019, which was heard and denied on January 31, 2020. The trial justice also

denied defendant’s prior motions for judgment of acquittal.           The defendant

appealed.7

6
 Count I was dismissed pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Superior Court Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
7
  The defendant filed two notices of appeal – one on January 2, 2020 from the
judgment of conviction and one on February 6, 2020 from the denial of his motion
for a new trial. Both notices of appeal are premature, as they appear to have been
filed prior to the entry of the judgment of conviction. However, “[i]t is well settled
that a premature notice of appeal will be considered timely so long as final judgment
                                          -8-
                                Standard of Review

      “This Court reviews questions of statutory construction de novo.” State v.

Jilling, 275 A.3d 1160, 1164 (R.I. 2022) (quoting State v. Peters, 172 A.3d 156, 159

(R.I. 2017)). “Typically, ‘[i]n accordance with our well-settled practice of statutory

construction, we first determine whether these statutory definitions, by their plain

language, are clear and unambiguous.’” Id. (quoting Peters, 172 A.3d at 160).

“Nevertheless, ‘this [C]ourt has the responsibility of effectuating the intent of the

Legislature by examining a statute in its entirety[.]’” Id. (quoting State v. Smith, 662

A.2d 1171, 1175 (R.I. 1995)). This Court is “mindful that ambiguities in penal

statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the party upon whom a penalty is to be

imposed.” Id. at 1164-65 (quoting State v. Hazard, 68 A.3d 479, 485 (R.I. 2013)).

Additionally, “[t]his Court will not construe a statute to reach an absurd result.” Id.

at 1165 (quoting Long v. Dell, Inc., 984 A.2d 1074, 1081 (R.I. 2009)).

      “When a trial justice considers a motion for a new trial, he or she acts as a

thirteenth juror and exercises independent judgment on the credibility of witnesses

and on the weight of the evidence.” State v. Avila, 252 A.3d 738, 742 (R.I. 2021)

(quoting State v. Phillips, 244 A.3d 897, 903 (R.I. 2021)). “If, after conducting such

a review, the trial justice reaches the same conclusion as the jury, the verdict should

is entered thereafter.” State v. Lamontagne, 231 A.3d 1132, 1138 n.2 (R.I. 2020)
(quoting State v. Souto, 210 A.3d 409, 415 n.8 (R.I. 2019)).
                                           -9-
be affirmed and the motion for a new trial denied.” Id. (quoting Phillips, 244 A.3d

at 903).

                                       Analysis

      This Court has held that the party contesting the constitutionality of a statute

has “the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the challenged enactment

is unconstitutional.” State v. Allen, 68 A.3d 512, 516 (R.I. 2013) (quoting State ex.

rel. Town of Westerly v. Bradley, 877 A.2d 601, 605 (R.I. 2005)). “[W]e ‘will attach

every reasonable intendment in favor of * * * constitutionality in order to preserve

the statute.’” Id. (quoting State v. Russell, 890 A.2d 453, 458 (R.I. 2006)). “A

criminal statute will be declared void for vagueness * * * [when it] is so vague that

people ‘of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as

to its application.’” Id. at 516-17 (quoting State v. Stierhoff, 879 A.2d 425, 435 (R.I.

2005)). A challenge based on vagueness “rest[s] principally on [a] lack of notice”

of the proscribed conduct. Id. at 517. Accordingly, “we see no reason to speculate

whether the statute notifies a hypothetical defendant” if the present facts establish

that the “defendant [was] given sufficient notice that his conduct [was] at risk[.]” Id.

(quoting State v. Sahady, 694 A.2d 707, 708 (R.I. 1997)).

                                          - 10 -
      The defendant asserts that § 11-5-128 is vague and ambiguous because it fails

to properly define the term “services necessary to maintain * * * physical or mental

health” and, thus, does not notify a potential criminal defendant what conduct is

proscribed.   He argues that a putative caregiver would not be capable of

understanding, without medical training, what services may be necessary to maintain

the physical or mental health of a severely impaired individual. The defendant

further contends that “services necessary to maintain * * * physical or mental health”

is an essential required element of the statute. We reject these contentions.

      “[A] penal statute ‘must contain a description or definition of the act or

conduct which comprises the offense contemplated therein stated with legal

certainty.’” State v. Carter, 827 A.2d 636, 644 (R.I. 2003) (quoting State v. Brown,

97 R.I. 115, 119, 196 A.2d 133, 136 (1963)).            “[S]o long as a statute is

constitutionally specific in regard to a particular defendant, this Court will not

consider a defendant’s facial-vagueness challenge.” Sahady, 694 A.2d at 708. When

“determin[ing] whether [a statute] is unconstitutionally vague as to [a particular]

defendant, we have stated previously that ‘the standard employed is whether the

disputed verbiage provides adequate warning to a person of ordinary intelligence

8
 Pursuant to § 11-5-12(a), “[a]ny person primarily responsible for the care of an
adult with severe impairments who shall willfully and knowingly abuse, neglect, or
exploit that adult” is in violation of the statute.

                                         - 11 -
that his conduct is illegal by common understanding and practice.’” Id. at 709

(brackets and deletion omitted) (quoting State v. Fonseca, 670 A.2d 1237, 1239 (R.I.

1996)). In Sahady, the defendant argued “that the phrases ‘when intoxicated’ and

‘under the influence’ [as set forth in G.L. 1956 § 11-47-52] fail[ed] to adequately

warn what conduct is proscribed by the General Assembly and that the statute is

therefore facially vague and vague as applied to him.” Id. at 708. This Court held

that the standard for intoxication “embodie[d] common understanding and practice

and [was] sufficiently precise to allow the general public to gauge its conduct,” and

was satisfied “that police authority [was] reasonably confined by the language of the

statute.” Id. at 709.

       In the case at bar, § 11-5-12(a) declares that a primary caregiver “who shall

willfully and knowingly abuse, neglect or exploit” an adult with severe impairments

shall be subject to the penalties outlined in the act. The term “neglect” means the

“fail[ure] to care for or attend to properly.” The American Heritage Dictionary of

the English Language 1179 (5th ed. 2011). “Neglect” is further specifically defined

by the statute as “the willful refusal to provide services necessary to maintain the

physical or mental health of an adult with severe impairments.” Section 11-5-

12(b)(4). Given the plain and ordinary meaning of the definition, we hold that the

language of § 11-5-12 is clear and unambiguous and not susceptible to more than

                                         - 12 -
one meaning. See Freepoint Solar LLC v. Richmond Zoning Board of Review, 274

A.3d 1, 6 (R.I. 2022).

      Mr. Vose acknowledged that he was notified repeatedly that his mother was

in need of services and that services were available given her diminished mental

state, which he described as dementia. He admitted that Pauline was a “wanderer”

and required GPS monitoring to ensure her safety.            Nonetheless, defendant

continued to allow his mother almost complete autonomy to roam the streets of

Pawtucket, in harm’s way. Pauline repeatedly was found wearing clothing that was

inappropriate for the weather. She lived in squalor, in a dwelling that reeked of urine

and animal feces and was unsanitary. The witnesses who escorted her home testified

that they could find no substantial food in the residence for Pauline to consume, and

that she was hungry. We are not confronted with a situation in which the type and

degree of services provided to this elderly woman were insufficient “to maintain

[her] physical or mental health[.]” Section 11-5-12(b)(4). There were no services

provided to Pauline and no support to protect her from harm.

      Further, we are of the opinion that the language of § 11-5-12, specifically the

term “[n]eglect,” “provides adequate warning to a person of ordinary intelligence

that [this] conduct is illegal by common understanding and practice.” Sahady, 694

A.2d at 709 (quoting Fonseca, 670 A.2d at 1239). We are satisfied that, based upon

the evidence presented at trial, a jury could find that defendant violated §11-5-12 by

                                          - 13 -
severely neglecting Pauline for an extended period of time. We reject defendant’s

contention that “services necessary to maintain * * * physical or mental health” is

an essential element of the charged offense, as it is used only to further define the

actus reus of the charge of neglect, and thus the state was not required to prove

specific available services.

       The defendant next contends that the term “severe impairment” as set forth in

§ 11-5-12 cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt without expert testimony, or

without testimony from Pauline’s medical providers. This Court has held that “the

jury will benefit from expert testimony when the subject matter of the inquiry is one

involving special skills and training beyond the ken of the average layman.” State v.

Sheridan, 252 A.3d 1236, 1246 (R.I. 2021) (quoting State v. Roscoe, 198 A.3d 1232,

1240 (R.I. 2019)). Expert witness testimony will not be required where “the facts

and circumstances can be accurately described to a jury and * * * the jury is as

capable of comprehending and understanding such facts and drawing correct

conclusions from them as is the expert * * *.” Id. (quoting Roscoe, 198 A.3d at 1240-

41).

       The statute under review defines an “[a]dult with severe impairments” as one

with a disability “attributable to a mental or physical impairment * * * result[ing] in

substantial functional limitations in one or more of the following areas of major life

activity: (i) mobility; (ii) self-care; (iii) communication; (iv) receptive and/or

                                          - 14 -
expressive language; (v) learning; (vi) self-direction; (vii) capacity for independent

living; or (viii) economic self-sufficiency.” Section 11-5-12(b)(2).

      This Court has noted that “[t]he majority of jurisdictions addressing [whether

expert testimony is necessary to establish mental disability] have applied a

case-by-case approach to assess whether lay evidence proffered at trial is sufficient

to establish the victim’s diminished mental state.” State v. Farley, 962 A.2d 748,

755-56 (R.I. 2009) (quoting State v. Gardiner, 895 A.2d 703, 712 n.11 (R.I. 2006)).

      Numerous witnesses in the case at bar testified that Pauline was found

roaming the streets, often dressed inappropriately for the weather, in a dirty and

disheveled condition. Pauline was frequently found in a state of confusion, unable

to find her way home. She approached her neighbors multiple times maintaining

that she was hungry and asking for food. She was transported to Memorial Hospital

on several occasions due to her diminished mental state. The defendant himself

declared that Pauline suffered from dementia and was a wanderer. He also stated

that he used a GPS tracking device attached to his mother to create a zone for her to

traverse the neighborhood due to her condition and that “[he] can’t go anywhere”

and has “to be home seven days a week.”

      Section 11-5-12, as enacted by the General Assembly, does not require expert

testimony to establish severe impairment. Based on the evidence presented at trial,

including defendant’s own statements, we are satisfied that it was not beyond the

                                         - 15 -
grasp of the “average layman” to determine that Pauline was an “adult with severe

impairments,” without the need for expert testimony. See Sheridan, 252 A.3d at

1246; § 11-5-12(b)(2).

      The defendant next asserts that the trial justice misapplied § 11-5-12 when

denying his motion for a new trial. When considering a motion for a new trial, a

trial justice must undertake a three-step analysis: “(1) consider the evidence in light

of the jury charge, (2) independently assess the credibility of the witnesses and the

weight of the evidence, and then (3) determine whether he or she would have reached

a result different from that reached by the jury.” State v. Moore, 154 A.3d 472, 480-

81 (R.I. 2017) (quoting State v. Fleck, 81 A.3d 1129, 1134 (R.I. 2014)).

      In arguing that the trial justice erred in his decision to deny the motion for a

new trial, defendant reiterates his contention that the state was required to establish

the services that were necessary to maintain Pauline’s physical or mental health. The

defendant asserts that the trial justice improperly found that safety issues satisfied

the statutory element of services necessary to maintain the physical or mental health

of the person and that the trial justice failed to make reference to any evidence that

there were services necessary to maintain Pauline’s physical or mental health that

were available and were willingly and knowingly refused by defendant.

      The trial justice thoroughly performed the required three-step analysis; he

reviewed the evidence in light of the jury charge, independently assessing the

                                          - 16 -
credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence to determine whether he

would have reached a result different from that of the jury. The trial justice first

addressed whether defendant was the person primarily responsible for Pauline’s

care. He noted that defendant told the police that he took care of all of Pauline’s

needs, including all meals, clothing, and medications. He also highlighted the fact

that defendant not only moved to Rhode Island to care for his mother, he had power

of attorney over all of her affairs. Based on the evidence presented, the trial justice

concluded that defendant was the person primarily responsible for Pauline’s care.

      The trial justice next addressed whether Pauline was an adult with severe

impairment. The trial justice referenced Pauline’s hospital records that indicated she

had a disability attributable to a mental impairment, which resulted in substantial

functional limitations in the areas of self-care, communication, self-direction, and

capacity for independent living. He then recounted the testimony of multiple

witnesses regarding their observations of Pauline’s physical and mental state during

their interactions with her, including the lack of appropriate clothing for the weather

and her confusion as to where she lived. After considering this evidence, the trial

justice concluded that a jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Pauline was

an adult with severe impairments. He further found that this determination could be

made by a jury without the need for expert testimony.

                                          - 17 -
      The last issue addressed by the trial justice in considering defendant’s motion

for a new trial was whether Vose knowingly and willfully refused to provide services

necessary to maintain Pauline’s physical or mental health. The trial justice once

again referred to defendant’s November 2015 interview with the Pawtucket police,

in which Vose indicated that Pauline had Alzheimer’s or dementia but that he did

not consider her wandering to be dangerous. The trial justice emphasized that,

during this interview, defendant suggested that he did not consider getting his mother

adult day care services at the Leon Mathews Center because they would not accept

wanderers, and that his mother did not want the services anyway.

      The trial justice further acknowledged that defendant indicated that he had

been investigating nursing home services, but that Pauline did not want to go to a

nursing home, nor did she want to receive any services outside the home or have

home-care nursing. The trial justice noted defendant’s statement that he found it

annoying to get messages from people offering services that his mother would not

accept, so he stopped answering.

      The trial justice lastly cited the testimony of Sgt. Dupont when ruling on the

motion for a new trial. Sergeant Dupont testified that he reviewed ten to fifteen

incident reports during 2015 involving Pauline. After each report, he contacted the

Division of Elderly Affairs and the Leon Mathews Center to ascertain if Pauline was

receiving services. Upon learning that defendant was Pauline’s caretaker, Sgt.

                                         - 18 -
Dupont attempted to contact him to learn why services were not being provided to

her, but was unsuccessful in contacting him. Based on this evidence, the trial justice

found that a jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant knowingly

and willfully refused to provide services necessary to maintain his mother’s physical

or mental health during the dates that defendant was charged.9

      The trial justice found that the testimony of the state’s witnesses should be

given great weight. He pronounced that the jury verdict was well-warranted, and

that he agreed with the verdict. The trial justice then denied defendant’s motion for

a new trial in accordance with Rule 33 of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of

Criminal Procedure.

      “In ruling on a motion for new trial, ‘the trial justice need not refer to all the

evidence supporting the decision but need only cite evidence sufficient to allow this

[C]ourt to discern whether the justice has applied the appropriate standards.’”

State v. Mondesir, 891 A.2d 856, 862 (R.I. 2006) (quoting State v. Otero, 788 A.2d

469, 472 (R.I. 2002)). Based upon the trial justice’s comprehensive review of the

9
 In view of the trial justice’s proper analysis of the motion for a new trial, we need
not address defendant’s contention that “safety concerns” or “lack of supervision”
do not satisfy the element of “services necessary to maintain the physical or mental
health of an adult with severe impairments.” This Court, however, has recognized
“supervision” as a social service. See In re William, Susan, and Joseph, 448 A.2d
1250, 1253 (R.I. 1982) (describing certain witness testimony stating that if a woman
was given custody of her children, “she would require almost constant supervision,”
which was “a social service unavailable from * * * existing state agencies”).

                                          - 19 -
evidence and testimony presented at trial, we decline to disturb the ruling on

defendant’s motion for a new trial.

      Finally, defendant argues that the state violated Rule 16 by failing to provide

a witness list before the first day of trial, and then failing to call more than half of

the witnesses on the list it did provide. It has been well established by this Court

that “an issue not preserved by specific objection at trial, may not be subsequently

considered on appeal.” State v. Alston, 47 A.3d 234, 243 (R.I. 2012) (quoting State

v. Goulet, 21 A.3d 302, 308 (R.I. 2011)). Moreover, an issue that was not raised

during trial “cannot belatedly be asserted during the motion for a new trial.” State v.

Albanese, 970 A.2d 1215, 1222 (R.I. 2009).

      Although the defendant raised vague concerns about the state’s witness list

during trial, the issue of a Rule 16 discovery violation was not addressed until the

defendant’s motion for a new trial. During the trial, defense counsel remarked that

the witness list provided contained individuals who had not been disclosed prior to

trial but failed to make any objections to the list. Because this issue was not raised

until the defendant’s motion for a new trial, it was not properly preserved, and we

decline to address it here. We note however, that, were the Court to address the

defendant’s contention, we would hold that it has no merit.

                                          - 20 -
                                      Conclusion

      For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the

Superior Court. The papers in this case may be returned to the Superior Court.

                                        - 21 -
                                             STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
                                         SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
                                               Licht Judicial Complex
                                                 250 Benefit Street
                                               Providence, RI 02903

                                     OPINION COVER SHEET

Title of Case                            State v. Carlton Vose.

                                         No. 2020-274-C.A.
Case Number
                                         (P2/16-2326A)

Date Opinion Filed                       February 1, 2023

                                         Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robison, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
                                         Long, JJ.

Written By                               Associate Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg

Source of Appeal                         Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court        Associate Justice Joseph A. Montalbano

                                         For State:

                                         Mariana E. Ormonde
Attorney(s) on Appeal                    Department of Attorney General
                                         For Defendant:

                                         Carlton Vose, Pro Se

SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)