State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537

Background

Eddie H. Dehning was tried by jury on charges of 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 Cora Bell’s power of attorney in Feb. 2011; she moved closer to him in June 2011 and was later diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in Nov.–Dec. 2011; she was moved to assisted living in Feb. 2013.
Family members and caregivers observed cognitive decline (memory loss, confusion, difficulty managing meds) beginning before or by 2011; those observations informed later family review of finances.
Bank records and witness testimony showed repeated transfers, ATM/debit use, cash withdrawals when funds moved between accounts, rental income deposited into Dehning’s account, and purchases (guns, electronics) paid from Cora Bell’s accounts.
Dehning testified he had Cora Bell’s consent for the transactions and claimed she told him her money was his; the jury rejected his testimony and found him guilty on both counts (theft totaled ~$32,447.28).
District court sentenced Dehning to consecutive terms: 60 months for exploitation and 5–10 years for theft (to run consecutively to unrelated prior sentences). Dehning appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence and alleged 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 consistent with statutory definition	Dehning: Cora Bell lived independently through Dec. 2012, so she was not vulnerable for part of the period	Court: Affirmed—observational testimony and medical diagnosis permitted a rational jury to find vulnerability throughout the charged period
Whether evidence proved theft by unlawful taking beyond a reasonable doubt	State: bank records, transfers with cash withdrawals, diversion of rent and purchases for Dehning supported intent to benefit without entitlement	Dehning: he had Cora Bell’s consent; testified she gave him discretion over her money	Court: Affirmed—credibility was for the jury; records and circumstantial evidence supported theft conviction
Whether consent (and power of attorney) negates theft liability	State: consent disputed; possession of POA does not immunize theft if intent to benefit wrongfully proven	Dehning: consent and POA justified his use of funds	Court: Affirmed—consent is a possible defense but jury could reject it; POA status does not preclude theft conviction
Whether the sentences were excessive or probation required	State: sentencing within statutory limits and court properly considered factors and risk of reoffense	Dehning: minimal prior history and probation would allow restitution and employment	Court: Affirmed—sentences within statutory limits; court did not abuse discretion in denying probation or imposing consecutive terms

Key Cases Cited

State v. McCurry, 891 N.W.2d 663 (Neb. 2017) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review in criminal cases)
State v. Rakosnik, 849 N.W.2d 538 (Neb. Ct. App. 2014) (power of attorney does not preclude conviction for theft/exploitation)
State v. Stubbs, 562 N.W.2d 547 (Neb. 1997) (distinguishing natural aging from substantial mental impairment)
State v. Fahlk, 524 N.W.2d 39 (Neb. 1994) (consent defense under theft statutes)
State v. Stolen, 755 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 2008) (treatment of prior authority on related theft/consent issues)
State v. Draper, 886 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 2016) (appellate review standard for sentencing and abuse of discretion)