State v. Vanderford, 312 Neb. 580

Background

Christine Vanderford, a Lincoln attorney, was appointed coguardian and later cotrustee for J.R.K., an adult with mental disabilities; Vanderford managed multiple accounts established for J.R.K.’s benefit.
Letters of guardianship expressly prohibited paying compensation to herself or her attorney from the ward’s assets without prior court approval and required annual accountings.
Vanderford billed and paid herself (and her firm) from J.R.K.’s accounts for legal and personal-care-related services at her regular hourly rates, often without court approval; investigators identified 16 payments totaling about $65,258.89.
Adult Protective Services and police investigated; Vanderford stepped down as coguardian and was charged with exploiting a vulnerable adult (count 1) and theft by unlawful taking (count 2).
After a bench trial the court convicted Vanderford of exploiting a vulnerable adult, acquitted her on the theft count, and sentenced her to 5 years’ probation; Vanderford appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the exploitation statute requires proof of a distinct financial crime (e.g., theft)	State: proving exploitation requires showing wrongful/unauthorized taking/use of the ward’s property by proscribed means	Vanderford: exploitation is a financial crime and requires proof of an underlying theft or similar financial crime	Court: Rejected. Statute’s definition is broader; it covers wrongful/unauthorized taking/use/appropriation/etc., and need not be limited to a separate theft conviction
Whether Vanderford’s payments were "wrongful or unauthorized" given stepfather’s knowledge and alleged trust authority	State: payments without court approval violated guardianship order and fiduciary duties, so were wrongful/unauthorized	Vanderford: stepfather/coguardian consent and alleged trust terms authorized payments	Court: Rejected consent/knowledge defense; letters of guardianship banned compensation without court order, so payments were wrongful/unauthorized; trust argument not adequately briefed
Sufficiency of mens rea — whether conduct was mere negligence/breach of fiduciary duty vs. criminal intent	State: evidence showed knowing and intentional acts causing exploitation	Vanderford: breach must be more than negligence; no sufficient criminal intent alleged	Court: Rejected. Statute requires knowing and intentional conduct; evidence supported that mens rea beyond negligence was proven
Effect of acquittal on theft count — inconsistent verdicts	State: counts are distinct; separate elements	Vanderford: acquittal on theft means exploitation conviction cannot stand	Court: Rejected. Different elements; inconsistent outcomes between counts do not mandate reversal
Sentencing remarks allegedly contradicting guilty verdict	State: judge’s comments did not undermine verdict	Vanderford: judge’s sentencing comments showed equivocation about financial exploitation	Court: Rejected. Remarks addressed scope/amount, not the existence of guilt; no contradiction of written verdict
Whether trial court erred by not making detailed written findings (defendant’s claimed condition of jury waiver)	State: court’s written verdict identified material elements and found each proven beyond a reasonable doubt	Vanderford: waiver was conditioned on specific findings; insufficiency of conclusions prejudiced her	Court: Rejected. Record shows no conditional waiver; courts in Nebraska need not make detailed findings in criminal bench trials; verdict was sufficient

Key Cases Cited

State v. Taylor, 310 Neb. 376, 966 N.W.2d 510 (Neb. 2021) (bench-trial sufficiency review standard)
State v. Chase, 310 Neb. 160, 964 N.W.2d 254 (Neb. 2021) (statutory interpretation principles)
State v. Knight, 311 Neb. 485, 973 N.W.2d 356 (Neb. 2022) (plain meaning of statutes)
State v. Grutell, 305 Neb. 843, 943 N.W.2d 258 (Neb. 2020) (elements of crime derived from statute)
Gonzales v. Nebraska Pediatric Practice, 308 Neb. 571, 955 N.W.2d 696 (Neb. 2021) (appellate discretion on unnecessary analysis)
State v. Franklin, 241 Neb. 579, 489 N.W.2d 552 (Neb. 1992) (no requirement for trial judge to make special findings in criminal bench trials)