State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537

Background

Eddie H. Dehning was charged (information alleging Jan 1, 2011–Dec 31, 2013) with exploitation of a vulnerable adult (Class IIIA) and theft by unlawful taking (Class III) involving his mother, Cora Bell.
Dehning became Cora Bell’s power of attorney in Feb 2011; she was later diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in Dec 2011 and moved to assisted living after being found unconscious in Dec 2012.
Family members and caregivers testified about progressive memory loss, missed medications, weight loss, and reduced hygiene; medical testimony supported a mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s diagnosis.
Bank records and family testimony showed transfers and withdrawals from Cora Bell’s accounts, rent checks deposited to Dehning’s account, ATM/debit use in locations Cora Bell would not have visited, and purchases (guns, electronics) benefiting Dehning.
Dehning testified he had Cora Bell’s permission for transactions and that she told him her money was his; the jury rejected his testimony and convicted on both counts (theft valued at $32,447.28).
Sentenced to 60 months for exploitation and 5–10 years for theft, to run consecutively and consecutive to an earlier Keith County sentence; Dehning appealed claiming insufficient evidence and excessive sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dehning)	Held
Sufficiency — was Cora Bell a “vulnerable adult” during charged period?	Evidence (medical diagnosis, witness observations, POA appointment) established substantial mental impairment meeting statutory definition.	Cora Bell lived independently until Dec 2012, so she was not vulnerable for much of the charged period.	Court: Affirmed — evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution supports vulnerability during period.
Sufficiency — theft by unlawful taking (intent/consent)?	Bank records, diverted rent, cash withdrawals, and purchases for Dehning show intent to benefit himself without entitlement; jury free to reject Dehning’s consent testimony.	Dehning testified Cora Bell consented and told him her money was his, negating criminal intent.	Court: Affirmed — jury credibility determination reasonable; evidence sufficient to prove theft.
Sentencing — excessive and probation appropriate?	(State) Sentences within statutory limits, rehabilitation and protection concerns justify imprisonment.	Dehning argued minimal prior history, probation would allow restitution and employment.	Court: Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court considered factors, demeanor, and risk of reoffense.
Credit for time served / consecutive sentencing to prior case?	(State) Consecutive service appropriate given prior convictions and trial findings.	Dehning noted he was incarcerated on a prior Keith County sentence and sought credit/avoidance of consecutive terms.	Court: Affirmed — sentences ordered consecutive to prior Keith County term; no credit due because he was serving prior sentence.

Key Cases Cited

State v. McCurry, 891 N.W.2d 663 (2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and factual credibility)
State v. Rakosnik, 849 N.W.2d 538 (Neb. App. 2014) (power of attorney does not immunize theft; evidence of diversion supports conviction)
State v. Stubbs, 562 N.W.2d 547 (1997) (distinguishing normal aging from statutory vulnerability)
State v. Fahlk, 524 N.W.2d 39 (1994) (consent is a defense to theft; credibility is for the trier of fact)
State v. Stolen, 755 N.W.2d 596 (2008) (overruling on other grounds referenced re: consent and related holdings)
State v. Draper, 886 N.W.2d 266 (2016) (standard and abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing)