State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537

Eddie H. Dehning was tried by jury on two counts (Jan 1, 2011–Dec 31, 2013): exploitation of a vulnerable adult (Class IIIA) and theft by unlawful taking (Class III), arising from his handling of his mother Cora Bell’s finances while he held power of attorney.
Evidence showed Cora Bell exhibited cognitive decline consistent with Alzheimer’s disease (diagnosed by a PA in Nov/Dec 2011) and had increasing difficulty managing independently; other family members observed memory problems as early as 2007–2011.
Family members who later became powers of attorney discovered bank records showing repeated transfers, ATM/debit usage in unlikely locations, cash withdrawals during transfers, rent checks deposited into Dehning’s account, and purchases (guns, electronics) funded 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; he denied wrongful intent and claimed she accompanied him for some ATM withdrawals.
The jury convicted Dehning on both counts (theft valued at $32,447.28). The court sentenced him to 60 months (exploitation) and 5–10 years (theft), to run consecutively and consecutive to prior Keith County sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Was Cora Bell a “vulnerable adult” during charged period?	State: testimony and medical records show substantial mental impairment (Alzheimer’s) meeting statutory definition.	Dehning: she lived independently until Dec 2012 and therefore was not vulnerable for part of the charged period.	Court: Evidence (observations, diagnosis) sufficient; jury could find vulnerable adult status during charged period.
Sufficiency: Theft — was intent/consent proven?	State: bank records and transactions support intent to benefit Dehning without entitlement; jury free to reject defendant’s testimony.	Dehning: he had express consent; thus lacked requisite intent to steal.	Court: Consent is a defense but jury credited State’s evidence over Dehning’s testimony; evidence sufficient for theft conviction.
Sentencing: Were the sentences excessive and should probation be imposed?	State: (implicit) sentences within statutory limits and supported by record.	Dehning: minimal prior history; probation would allow restitution and employment.	Court: No abuse of discretion; sentencing court considered factors, found defendant’s testimony and demeanor lacked credibility, and reasonably denied probation.

State v. McCurry, 891 N.W.2d 663 (2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal convictions)
State v. Draper, 886 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 2016) (appellate review of sentences—abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Rakosnik, 849 N.W.2d 538 (Neb. Ct. App. 2014) (power of attorney does not immunize theft; factual sufficiency for vulnerable adult exploitation)
State v. Stubbs, 562 N.W.2d 547 (1997) (distinguishing natural aging from mental impairment for vulnerable adult findings)
State v. Fahlk, 524 N.W.2d 39 (1994) (consent as defense to theft of movable property)
State v. Stolen, 755 N.W.2d 596 (2008) (overruling on other grounds; cited regarding treatment of prior authority)