State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537

Eddie H. Dehning was charged (Information) with exploitation of a vulnerable adult (Class IIIA) and theft by unlawful taking (Class III) for conduct 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 was later diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in Nov–Dec 2011 and moved to assisted living after being found unconscious in Dec 2012.
Family members and caregivers testified about Cora Bell’s progressive memory problems, missed medications, weight loss, and diminished hygiene; medical testimony supported a mild–moderate Alzheimer’s diagnosis by December 2011.
Bank records and testimony showed repeated transfers, ATM/debit activity, rental proceeds diverted to Dehning’s account, cash withdrawals during transfers, and purchases (guns, electronics, shed) paid from Cora Bell’s accounts; jury found theft amount $32,447.28.
Dehning testified he had Cora Bell’s consent for the transactions and expenditures; the jury rejected his testimony and convicted on both counts. Sentence: 60 months (exploitation) + 5–10 years (theft), to run consecutively and consecutive to an earlier sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency—vulnerable adult element for exploitation	State: evidence of Alzheimer’s and observed impairment satisfied statutory definition	Dehning: Cora Bell lived independently until Dec 2012, so she was not vulnerable throughout charged period	Court: Evidence (medical diagnosis and witness observations) sufficed to prove vulnerable adult during charged period; conviction affirmed
Sufficiency—intent/consent for theft by unlawful taking	State: transfers, diversion of rent, cash withdrawals, and personal purchases showed intent to benefit Dehning without entitlement	Dehning: he had Cora Bell’s consent; she told him her money was his and appeared with him for ATMs	Court: Credibility is for jury; evidence permitted finding Dehning lacked consent and intended to benefit himself; conviction affirmed
Sentence excessive / probation requested	State: sentences within statutory limits and court considered factors supporting imprisonment	Dehning: minimal prior record, probation would allow restitution and employment	Court: No abuse of discretion; sentencing judge considered demeanor, offense nature, criminal history, and found incarceration appropriate
Credit for time served	—	Dehning sought credit for time served	Court: No credit because defendant was serving time on unrelated prior convictions during period; sentence ordering was proper

State v. McCurry, 891 N.W.2d 663 (2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in criminal convictions)
State v. Rakosnik, 849 N.W.2d 538 (Neb. Ct. App. 2014) (power of attorney status does not preclude theft conviction; evidence can support exploitation/theft)
State v. Stubbs, 562 N.W.2d 547 (1997) (distinguishing natural aging from substantial mental impairment)
State v. Fahlk, 524 N.W.2d 39 (1994) (consent is a defense to theft of movable property)
State v. Stolen, 755 N.W.2d 596 (2008) (overruling on other grounds noted in Fahlk citation)
State v. Draper, 886 N.W.2d 266 (2016) (abuse of discretion standard for reviewing sentences)