State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537

Defendant Eddie H. Dehning was charged (trial April 2016) with exploitation of a vulnerable adult (Class IIIA) and theft by unlawful taking (Class III); jury convicted on both counts.
Charges alleged misconduct from Jan 1, 2011, to Dec 31, 2013; victim was Dehning’s mother, Cora Bell, for whom Dehning became power of attorney in Feb 2011.
Medical and lay testimony established progressive memory loss/Alzheimer’s beginning by 2011 and inability to manage independently by mid-2012.
Bank records and family testimony showed repeated transfers, ATM/debit use, cash withdrawals, rental income routed to Dehning, and purchases (guns, electronics) benefiting Dehning.
Dehning testified he had Cora Bell’s consent for the transactions and that she told him her money was his; jury rejected his testimony.
Sentenced to 60 months for exploitation and 5–10 years for theft, to run consecutively; Dehning appealed for insufficient evidence and excessive sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Was victim a "vulnerable adult" during charged period?	State: testimony and medical records show substantial mental impairment (Alzheimer’s) meeting statutory definition.	Dehning: victim lived independently until Dec 2012; not vulnerable for all charged period.	Court: Evidence viewed favorably to State supports vulnerability; conviction affirmed.
Sufficiency: Theft by unlawful taking — lack of required intent due to consent defense	State: bank records and circumstantial evidence show transfers and personal benefit, supporting intent and lack of consent.	Dehning: testified Cora Bell consented; claimed permission for transactions.	Court: Credibility is for jury; jury could reject Dehning’s testimony and find theft proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Sentencing: Excessive sentence / probation requested	State: sentencing within statutory limits and supported by record.	Dehning: minimal prior history; probation would allow restitution and employment.	Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered factors, rejected probation, affirmed sentence.
Applicability of power of attorney to theft liability	State: power of attorney does not preclude theft conviction when taking exceeds authority.	Dehning: asserted power of attorney and consent shielded his actions.	Court: Power of attorney does not excuse theft; conviction sustained.

State v. McCurry, 891 N.W.2d 663 (Neb.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
State v. Draper, 886 N.W.2d 266 (Neb.) (standard and abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing)
State v. Rakosnik, 849 N.W.2d 538 (Neb. App.) (power of attorney does not bar theft conviction)
State v. Stubbs, 562 N.W.2d 547 (Neb.) (contrast between dementia and ordinary aging for vulnerability determination)
State v. Fahlk, 524 N.W.2d 39 (Neb.) (consent as defense to theft)
State v. Stolen, 755 N.W.2d 596 (Neb.) (related precedent cited in discussion)