State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537

Background

Eddie H. Dehning was charged with (1) exploitation of a vulnerable adult (Class IIIA) and (2) theft by unlawful taking (Class III) based on transactions from Jan 1, 2011 to Dec 31, 2013 involving his mother, Cora Bell.
Dehning became Cora Bell’s power of attorney in Feb 2011; she was later diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in Nov/Dec 2011 and moved to assisted living after being found unconscious in Dec 2012.
Family members and a physician’s assistant testified to progressive cognitive decline (memory loss, medication mismanagement, diminished hygiene) beginning before and during the charged period.
Bank records and witness testimony showed numerous transfers, ATM withdrawals, and rent checks routed to Dehning or his accounts; purchases for Dehning (guns, electronics, shed) were paid from Cora Bell’s funds.
Dehning testified he had Cora Bell’s consent for the transactions and that she told him her money was his; the jury rejected his testimony and convicted him on both counts, valuing the theft at $32,447.28.
The district court sentenced Dehning to consecutive prison terms (60 months for exploitation; 5–10 years for theft) and denied probation; 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 the charged period	State: testimony and medical records show substantial mental impairment (Alzheimer’s) beginning in 2011	Dehning: Cora Bell lived independently until Dec 2012, so she was not vulnerable for much of the period	Court: Sufficient evidence (observations, diagnosis) supported vulnerability finding; conviction affirmed
Whether evidence established theft by unlawful taking beyond a reasonable doubt	State: bank records, transfers, withdrawals, and purchases showed takings benefiting Dehning without entitlement	Dehning: he had Cora Bell’s consent; testified she said her money was his	Court: Credibility for jury; evidence permitted finding of intent to benefit Dehning without consent; conviction affirmed
Whether consent (or power of attorney) negates theft liability	State: consent was disputed; power of attorney does not permit unauthorized self-dealing	Dehning: asserted consent and authority as POA	Court: Consent is a defense if credible, but jury rejected Dehning’s testimony; power of attorney does not immunize theft; conviction stands
Whether the sentences were excessive or probation was appropriate	State: sentencing within statutory limits and court considered factors	Dehning: minimal prior record; probation would allow restitution and employment	Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered defendant’s demeanor, nature of offenses, prior record, and risk of reoffense; sentences affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. McCurry, 891 N.W.2d 663 (2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence 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. App. 2014) (power of attorney does not preclude theft liability)
State v. Stubbs, 562 N.W.2d 547 (Neb. 1997) (distinguishing natural aging from mental impairment for vulnerability)
State v. Fahlk, 524 N.W.2d 39 (Neb. 1994) (consent as defense to theft of movable property)
State v. Stolen, 755 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 2008) (overruling on other grounds noted in opinion)