State v. Dehning
296 Neb. 537
Neb.2017Background
- Eddie H. Dehning was charged (by information) with exploitation of a vulnerable adult (Class IIIA) and theft by unlawful taking (Class III) for transactions occurring Jan 1, 2011–Dec 31, 2013; jury convicted on both counts.
- Victim: Dehning’s mother, Cora Bell, who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in late 2011 and whose family and treating PA testified to memory loss, confusion, and difficulty managing independently during the charged period.
- Dehning became Cora Bell’s power of attorney in Feb 2011; family members later (Nov 2013) obtained power of attorney and discovered numerous bank transfers, withdrawals, and deposits suggesting funds were diverted, including rent checks deposited into Dehning’s account and ATM/debit use in places Cora Bell would not travel.
- Dehning testified he had Cora Bell’s permission for the transactions and that she told him her money was his; he also used her funds to buy items (guns, electronics) and paid some of his bills from her account.
- Trial evidence included testimony from family, a physician’s assistant, bank records from two of Cora Bell’s accounts and two of Dehning’s accounts, and spreadsheets prepared by family showing suspicious transactions; theft amount found by jury: $32,447.28.
- Sentencing: court imposed consecutive terms — 60 months for exploitation, 5–10 years for theft — and ordered them consecutive to prior Keith County sentences; Dehning appealed claiming insufficient evidence and excessive sentence.
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 established substantial mental impairment (Alzheimer’s) meeting statutory definition | Dehning: Cora Bell lived independently until Dec 2012, so she was not vulnerable for much of the charged period | Court: Affirmed — evidence (observations, diagnosis, testimony) sufficient to find vulnerability during the period |
| Whether evidence—despite Dehning’s consent testimony—proved theft beyond reasonable doubt | State: bank records, transfers with cash withdrawals, rent deposited to Dehning, purchases for Dehning supported intent to benefit without entitlement | Dehning: he had Cora Bell’s consent and belief she authorized use of her funds, negating criminal intent | Court: Affirmed — jury could disbelieve Dehning; evidence sufficient to prove theft under §28-511(2) |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying directed verdict / sufficiency review | State: presented legally sufficient evidence for jury to find elements beyond reasonable doubt | Dehning: moved for directed verdict at close of State’s case | Court: Denied — standard of review favors prosecution and conflicts/credibility resolved by jury |
| Whether sentences imposed were excessive or abuse of discretion | State: sentencing within statutory limits and supported by presentence report and trial observations | Dehning: prior record minimal; requested probation to work and pay restitution | Court: Affirmed — court considered appropriate factors, found demeanor/callousness and risk of reoffense; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCurry, 891 N.W.2d 663 (Neb. 2017) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- State v. Draper, 886 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 2016) (appellate review of sentencing; abuse of discretion standard)
- 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 (Neb. 1997) (distinguishing normal aging from substantial mental impairment)
- State v. Fahlk, 524 N.W.2d 39 (Neb. 1994) (consent as defense to theft of movable property)