State v. Carlton Vose, 287 A.3d 997

Carlton Vose moved from Florida to Rhode Island to care for his mother, Pauline, who suffered dementia; he held her power of attorney and lived with her at 314 Kenyon Avenue, Pawtucket.
From January through November 2015 Pauline was repeatedly found wandering, disoriented, inadequately clothed for weather, hungry, and living in an unsanitary home lacking substantial food and basic utilities.
Multiple police officers, an elder-abuse investigator, and social‑service personnel encountered Pauline, transported her to the hospital on several occasions, and documented the home conditions; Vose acknowledged she was a wanderer and had dementia and used a GPS device to monitor her.
Vose was charged with seven counts of neglecting an adult with severe impairments under G.L. 1956 § 11-5-12; one count was dismissed and a jury convicted him on six counts in December 2019.
The Superior Court sentenced Vose to concurrent five-year terms (two years to serve, balance suspended), probation, fine, counseling, and a no-contact order; Vose appealed raising four issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether § 11-5-12 is vague/ambiguous	Statute is sufficiently specific; definition of "neglect" and "services necessary" supplies notice.	§ 11-5-12 is vague because "services necessary to maintain physical or mental health" is undefined and requires medical expertise.	Statute unambiguous; language provides adequate warning to ordinary person.
2. Whether expert/medical testimony is required to prove "severe impairment"	Lay evidence and defendant’s own statements suffice to show severe impairment under statutory factors.	Proof of "severe impairment" requires expert or medical-provider testimony.	No per se requirement for expert testimony; lay evidence was sufficient here.
3. Whether trial justice erred in denying new trial	Verdict supported by evidence; trial justice properly acted as thirteenth juror and applied three‑step test.	Trial justice misapplied statute by treating "safety/supervision" as satisfying "services necessary" and failed to require evidence of available services refused by Vose.	Trial justice correctly reviewed credibility and weight of evidence and properly denied new trial.
4. Whether State violated Rule 16 by late witness list/calling fewer witnesses	Discovery issue not preserved at trial; raised only in new‑trial motion.	State violated Rule 16 and prejudice followed from witness list issues.	Claim not preserved for appeal; and, on the merits, would have lacked merit.

State v. Jilling, 275 A.3d 1160 (R.I. 2022) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
State v. Sahady, 694 A.2d 707 (R.I. 1997) (vagueness assessed by whether statute notifies a person of ordinary intelligence)
State v. Sheridan, 252 A.3d 1236 (R.I. 2021) (expert testimony required only when subject beyond ken of lay jurors)
State v. Roscoe, 198 A.3d 1232 (R.I. 2019) (expert‑testimony standard for specialized subjects)
State v. Farley, 962 A.2d 748 (R.I. 2009) (case‑by‑case approach to proving mental disability with lay evidence)
State v. Carter, 827 A.2d 636 (R.I. 2003) (penal statutes must adequately describe proscribed conduct)
State v. Moore, 154 A.3d 472 (R.I. 2017) (three‑step analysis for motions for new trial)
State v. Mondesir, 891 A.2d 856 (R.I. 2006) (trial justice need not cite all evidence but must cite enough to show correct standards applied)
In re William, Susan, and Joseph, 448 A.2d 1250 (R.I. 1982) (recognizing "supervision" as a social service)