State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537

Background

Defendant Eddie H. Dehning was charged (by information) with exploitation of a vulnerable adult (Class IIIA felony) and theft by unlawful taking (Class III felony) for transactions occurring Jan 1, 2011–Dec 31, 2013; jury convicted on both counts and valued the theft at $32,447.28.
Dehning became his mother Cora Bell’s power of attorney in Feb 2011; by late 2011–2012 multiple witnesses (family members, a PA/clinician) observed memory loss and diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease; she was moved to assisted living in Feb 2013.
Family members who later became powers of attorney reviewed Cora Bell’s bank records and identified suspicious transfers, missing cash on deposits, ATM/debit activity in places she would not have traveled, and rent checks being deposited to Dehning’s account.
Dehning testified he had Cora Bell’s consent for financial transactions, claimed she told him her money was his and that he had her permission to use funds and purchase items (e.g., a shed); he also testified she accompanied him for some ATM withdrawals.
Trial court denied a directed verdict; at sentencing court found Dehning’s testimony incredible, considered his criminal history and demeanor, denied probation, and imposed consecutive prison terms (60 months and 5–10 years) to run consecutively with an earlier sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — vulnerable adult element for exploitation	State: evidence showed Cora Bell had substantial mental impairment (observations, clinical diagnosis) during charged period	Dehning: Cora Bell lived independently until Dec 2012 and therefore was not a "vulnerable adult" for much of the charged timeframe	Court: Evidence (observations, MRI/diagnosis, witness testimony) was sufficient; a rational juror could find Cora Bell was a vulnerable adult during the period alleged
Sufficiency — theft by unlawful taking (intent/consent)	State: bank records, transfers, withdrawals, purchases for Dehning supported intent to benefit himself without entitlement	Dehning: he had Cora Bell’s consent for the transactions; she told him the money was his	Court: Jury could reject Dehning’s testimony; evidence supported conviction despite POA status; consent was evaluated by trier of fact and disbelieved
Sentencing — excessive / probation requested	State: sentencing within statutory limits and based on presentence report and trial demeanor	Dehning: prior record minimal; probation would allow restitution and employment	Court: No abuse of discretion; court properly considered factors, demeanor, prior convictions, and risk of reoffense; denial of probation and prison terms affirmed
Directed verdict motion (post-State case)	State: evidence met burden, so denial proper	Dehning: argued insufficiency warranted directed verdict	Held: Denial of directed verdict was proper — evidence sufficient for jury to convict

Key Cases Cited

State v. McCurry, 891 N.W.2d 663 (Neb. 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
State v. Rakosnik, 849 N.W.2d 538 (Neb. App. 2014) (conviction affirmed where evidence established exploitation of a vulnerable adult)
State v. Stubbs, 562 N.W.2d 547 (Neb. 1997) (reversing conviction where evidence showed natural aging rather than substantial impairment)
State v. Fahlk, 524 N.W.2d 39 (Neb. 1994) (consent is a defense to theft by taking of movable property; relevant to consent defense analysis)
State v. Draper, 886 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 2016) (standard for appellate review of sentencing; abuse of discretion test)
State v. Stolen, 755 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 2008) (discussed in relation to precedent and statutory interpretation)