State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537

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). He pled not guilty and was tried by jury.
Victim was Dehning’s mother, Cora Bell, who moved closer to Dehning in 2011; Dehning became her power of attorney in Feb. 2011. Medical evidence (physician assistant) diagnosed probable Alzheimer’s in Dec. 2011 and documented declining memory and functional ability through 2012.
Family members and others examined bank records and testified to repeated transfers, ATM/debit uses inconsistent with Cora Bell’s habits, rent checks deposited to Dehning’s account, cash withdrawals during transfers, and purchases by Dehning (guns, electronics, shed) paid from Cora Bell’s accounts.
Dehning testified he had Cora Bell’s consent for transactions and claimed she told him her money was his; he also testified she accompanied him for some ATM withdrawals.
Jury convicted on both counts; theft was valued at $32,447.28. District court sentenced Dehning to 60 months (exploitation) and 5–10 years (theft), to run consecutively and consecutive to prior Keith County sentences. Dehning appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dehning)	Held
Whether evidence proved victim was a “vulnerable adult” during charged period	Evidence of diagnosed Alzheimer’s (Dec. 2011), observed memory problems since 2007–2011, and witnesses’ observations support substantial mental impairment	Cora Bell lived independently until Dec. 2012; therefore she was not vulnerable for part of charged period	Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a rational jury could find Cora Bell met statutory definition of vulnerable adult (observational testimony suffices)
Whether evidence supported theft conviction where defendant claimed consent	Bank records, transfers with cash withdrawals, rent deposited to Dehning, and purchases for Dehning support intent to benefit without entitlement	Dehning testified Cora Bell consented and told him her money was his; consent negates theft	Affirmed: credibility was for jury; evidence sufficed to discredit consent claim and prove unlawful taking and intent to benefit Dehning
Whether sentences were excessive and whether probation should have been imposed	Court emphasized seriousness, need for confinement, risk of further crimes, defendant’s demeanor and prior record	Dehning argued minimal prior history and probation would allow restitution and employment	Affirmed: sentences within statutory limits; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying probation and imposing consecutive terms

State v. McCurry, 891 N.W.2d 663 (Neb. 2017) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review in criminal convictions)
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; affirming exploitation/theft where evidence showed misuse)
State v. Stubbs, 562 N.W.2d 547 (Neb. 1997) (distinguishing natural aging from mental impairment sufficient for vulnerable-adult statute)
State v. Fahlk, 524 N.W.2d 39 (Neb. 1994) (consent as defense to theft of movable property; relevant to consent defense analysis)
State v. Stolen, 755 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 2008) (overruling context noted; cited for legal background on consent/related issues)