State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537

Background

Defendant Eddie H. Dehning was charged with exploitation of a vulnerable adult (Class IIIA) and theft by unlawful taking (Class III) for transactions from Jan 1, 2011, to Dec 31, 2013 involving his mother, Cora Bell.
Dehning became his mother’s power of attorney in Feb 2011; family and medical testimony established progressive memory impairment and a December 2011 diagnosis of probable Alzheimer’s disease.
Family members reviewing bank records after new powers of attorney (Nov 2013) identified numerous suspicious transfers, ATM/debit uses, missing cash in inter-account transfers, rent checks deposited to Dehning’s account, and purchases (guns, electronics) paid from Cora Bell’s accounts.
Dehning admitted at trial he used Cora Bell’s funds and claimed she consented, asserting she told him her money was his and that he had permission for specific expenditures.
A jury convicted Dehning on both counts (theft amount found to be $32,447.28). The district court imposed consecutive prison terms (60 months for exploitation; 5–10 years for theft), to run consecutive to an existing sentence from a separate case.
Dehning appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence that Cora Bell was a vulnerable adult and (2) insufficient evidence of theft given his consent defense; he also challenged sentence excessiveness.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved Cora Bell was a "vulnerable adult" during charged period	State: testimony and medical diagnosis showed substantial mental impairment meeting statutory definition	Dehning: Cora Bell lived independently until Dec 2012, so she was not vulnerable for much of the charged period	Court: Affirmed — testimonial and medical evidence supported finding of substantial mental impairment and vulnerability
Whether evidence supported theft by unlawful taking despite Dehning's claim of consent	State: bank records, missing cash in transfers, personal purchases from Cora Bell’s funds showed intent to benefit Dehning without entitlement	Dehning: he had Cora Bell’s consent for transactions; testified she said her money was his	Court: Affirmed — credibility resolved by jury; circumstantial and documentary evidence supported guilt despite claimed consent
Whether court erred in denying directed verdict after State rested	State: presented sufficient evidence for jury to decide	Dehning: insufficient evidence to go to jury	Court: Overruled — evidence legally sufficient to submit to jury
Whether sentences imposed were excessive / whether probation was appropriate	State: incarceration within statutory limits and justified by facts and defendant’s record	Dehning: minimal prior history; probation would let him work and repay restitution	Court: Affirmed — sentencing court considered appropriate factors, found prison necessary, no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. McCurry, 891 N.W.2d 663 (Neb. 2017) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Draper, 886 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of sentences)
State v. Rakosnik, 849 N.W.2d 538 (Neb. Ct. App. 2014) (power of attorney status does not preclude theft conviction)
State v. Stubbs, 562 N.W.2d 547 (Neb. 1997) (distinguishing natural aging from mental impairment sufficient for vulnerable-adult statutes)
State v. Fahlk, 524 N.W.2d 39 (Neb. 1994) (consent as a defense to theft by taking of movable property; logic extends to immovable transfers)
State v. Stolen, 755 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 2008) (overruling on other grounds noted in opinion)