State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537

Background

Defendant Eddie H. Dehning was charged (Jan 1, 2011–Dec 31, 2013) with exploitation of a vulnerable adult (his mother, Cora Bell) and theft by unlawful taking.
Dehning became Cora Bell’s power of attorney in Feb 2011; medical evidence (physician’s assistant) and family testimony showed progressive memory loss/Alzheimer’s beginning by late 2011.
Family members reviewing bank records after others obtained power of attorney in Nov 2013 identified repeated transfers, ATM/debit use in places Cora Bell would not travel, rent receipts routed to Dehning, cash withdrawals during transfers, and purchases (guns, electronics) paid from her accounts.
Dehning testified he had Cora Bell’s consent for the transactions and that she told him her money was his; the jury rejected his account.
Jury convicted on both counts; theft amount found $32,447.28. District court imposed consecutive prison terms (60 months; 5–10 years) and denied probation. Dehning appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dehning)	Held
Whether evidence established Cora Bell was a "vulnerable adult" during charged period	Testimony and medical records show substantial mental impairment (Alzheimer’s) observable before and during charged period	Argued she lived independently until Dec 2012 so was not vulnerable for part of period	Court: Evidence (medical diagnosis and multiple witness observations) sufficed to prove vulnerability beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether evidence proved theft by unlawful taking given claimed consent	Bank records, transfers with cash withdrawals, diversion of rent, and purchases for Dehning support intent to benefit himself without entitlement	Dehning claimed express consent and presence for ATM withdrawals, so no criminal intent	Court: Jury could reject Dehning’s testimony; prosecution presented legally sufficient evidence to prove theft beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether consent (as defense) invalidates theft conviction	Consent invalid if not credibly proven; jury decides credibility	Dehning asserted consent as defense	Court: Credibility was for jury; jury found no valid consent—conviction stands
Whether sentences were excessive or abuse of discretion	Sentencing court properly considered factors (demeanor, nature of offense, criminal history) and found incarceration necessary; denial of probation justified	Dehning argued minimal prior record and probation would allow restitution and work	Court: Sentences within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. McCurry, 891 N.W.2d 663 (Neb. 2017) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Rakosnik, 849 N.W.2d 538 (Neb. Ct. App. 2014) (holding power of attorney does not immunize theft; sufficiency of exploitation proof)
State v. Stubbs, 562 N.W.2d 547 (Neb. 1997) (distinguishing natural aging from mental impairment for vulnerable adult analysis)
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 referenced)
State v. Draper, 886 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 2016) (standard for reviewing sentencing for abuse of discretion)