State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537

Defendant Eddie H. Dehning was charged (Jan. 1, 2011–Dec. 31, 2013) with exploitation of a vulnerable adult (Class IIIA) and theft by unlawful taking (Class III).
Dehning became his mother Cora Bell’s power of attorney in Feb. 2011; medical evidence (MRI, MMSE) and witnesses established she was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in late 2011 and showed memory impairment thereafter.
Family members and a physician’s assistant testified about progressive cognitive decline, missed medications, and difficulty living independently.
Bank records and testimony showed repeated transfers, ATM/debit use in distant locations, cash withdrawals when funds were transferred between accounts, rent checks deposited to 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 that she told him her money was his; the jury rejected this defense.
Jury convicted on both counts; theft was valued at $32,447.28. Sentences: 60 months (exploitation) and 5–10 years (theft), consecutive and consecutive to an unrelated prior sentence. Appeal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dehning)	Held
Whether evidence proved Cora Bell was a "vulnerable adult" during the charged period	Testimony and medical records showed substantial mental impairment (Alzheimer’s) meeting statutory definition	Cora Bell lived independently until Dec. 2012; not vulnerable for entire charged period	Court held evidence (observations, diagnosis, testimony) sufficed; vulnerability proven for period alleged
Whether theft conviction was supported given claimed consent	Bank records, unexplained cash withdrawals, misuse of rent proceeds, and purchases for Dehning show intent to benefit without entitlement	Dehning testified Cora Bell consented to transfers and expenditures	Court held jury could discredit Dehning’s testimony; evidence sufficient to prove theft beyond reasonable doubt
Whether the sentences were excessive or probation should have been imposed	Sentencing court considered seriousness, defendant’s demeanor, prior record, and risk of reoffense; imprisonment appropriate	Dehning argued minimal prior history and that probation would allow restitution and employment	Court found no abuse of discretion; sentences within statutory limits and justified by court’s findings

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. Ct. App. 2014) (theft/exploitation convictions where POA did not preclude guilt)
State v. Stubbs, 562 N.W.2d 547 (Neb. 1997) (distinguishing normal aging from mental impairment for vulnerability)
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 noted)
State v. Draper, 886 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 2016) (standard for reviewing sentence abuse of discretion)