State v. Carlton Vose

Syllabus

The defendant, Carlton Vose, appealed from his conviction in Superior Court on six counts of neglecting an adult with severe impairments, in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-5-12. On appeal, the defendant raised several issues: (1) whether § 11 5 12 is ambiguous as written (2) whether medical testimony is necessary to establish \severe impairment\ under § 11-5-12 (3) whether the trial justice misapplied the law when he denied the 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.<br> <br>The Supreme Court concluded that the language of § 11-5-12 was clear and unambiguous and not susceptible to more than one meaning, and that defendant had notice of the conduct proscribed by the statute. Additionally, the Court held that §11-5-12 does not require expert testimony to establish \severe impairment\ as this determination was not beyond the grasp of the \average layman.\ State v. Sheridan, 252 A.3d 1236, 1246 (R.I. 2021).<br><br>Regarding the defendant's contention that the trial justice misapplied the law when he denied the motion for a new trial, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial justice thoroughly performed the required three-step process when making this determination, and declined to disturb his ruling. Lastly, the Court declined to address the defendant's assertion that the state violated Rule 16 as this issue was not properly preserved for review.<br><br>Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. <br>