State v. Dehning, 894 N.W.2d 331

Background

Eddie H. Dehning was tried by jury on charges of exploitation of a vulnerable adult (Class IIIA felony) and theft by unlawful taking (Class III felony) based on transactions occurring Jan. 1, 2011–Dec. 31, 2013 involving his mother, Cora Bell.
Dehning became Cora Bell’s power of attorney in Feb. 2011; family and medical testimony indicated progressive memory loss and an Alzheimer’s diagnosis by Dec. 2011.
Family members and bank records showed transfers, cash withdrawals, and deposits inconsistent with expected rent receipts; items purchased with her funds (guns, electronics) and rental income often flowed to Dehning’s accounts.
Dehning testified he had Cora Bell’s consent for the transactions and claimed she told him her money was his; the jury rejected his testimony and convicted him on both counts (theft valued at $32,447.28).
The district court imposed consecutive prison terms: 60 months for exploitation and 5–10 years for theft, to run consecutive to an existing sentence; Dehning appealed claiming insufficient evidence and excessive sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved victim was a “vulnerable adult” under § 28-371 and § 28-369	State: testimony and medical records showed substantial mental impairment (Alzheimer’s) sufficient for statutory definition	Dehning: victim lived independently until Dec. 2012, so not vulnerable for portions of charged period	Court: Viewing evidence for prosecution, jury could find substantial mental impairment; conviction affirmed
Whether evidence proved theft by unlawful taking beyond a reasonable doubt given claimed consent	State: bank records, diverted rent, cash withdrawals, purchases for Dehning supported intent to benefit without entitlement	Dehning: he had consent and power of attorney; transactions authorized	Court: Credibility is for jury; prosecution produced legally sufficient evidence to disprove consent and prove theft; conviction affirmed
Whether Dehning’s testimony asserting consent required reversal	State: credibility questions for jury; other evidence rebutted consent claim	Dehning: his testimony established lack of criminal intent	Court: Rejected defendant’s reliance on his own credibility; appellate court will not reweigh evidence; affirmation stands
Whether the sentences were excessive or probation should have been imposed	State: sentencing within statutory limits and justified by offense seriousness and risk of recidivism	Dehning: minimal prior record; probation would facilitate restitution and employment	Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered factors, demeanor, presentence report, and properly denied probation

Key Cases Cited

State v. McCurry, 891 N.W.2d 663 (2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
State v. Rakosnik, 849 N.W.2d 538 (Neb. Ct. App. 2014) (power of attorney does not preclude theft conviction)
State v. Stubbs, 562 N.W.2d 547 (1997) (distinguishing natural aging from statutory vulnerability)
State v. Fahlk, 524 N.W.2d 39 (1994) (consent as defense to theft of movable property)
State v. Stolen, 755 N.W.2d 596 (2008) (overruling on other grounds noted in context of consent and theft)
State v. Draper, 886 N.W.2d 266 (2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing sentences)