## Facts

- Dale Edmisten, an elderly Nebraska farmer, lived alone on his farm near Sutherland, Nebraska.
- After a 1992 automobile accident, Edmisten showed confusion and difficulty walking.
- In March 1993, Edmisten’s niece, Janie Knickerbocker, visited from Colorado and observed that Edmisten could recall past events but had difficulty understanding current events and had trouble moving.
- Knickerbocker obtained a power of attorney to manage Edmisten’s health and financial affairs; she testified that Edmisten appeared to understand what he was signing.
- Although Knickerbocker believed Edmisten should not be living alone, she delayed moving him to a nursing home until May 1993 and returned to Colorado in the interim.
- While Knickerbocker was away, Edmisten continued living alone and handled many daily tasks, including cooking, dressing, bathing, picking up mail, and paying bills.
- During spring 1993, Rick Stubbs visited Edmisten multiple times and purchased various items from him.
- After Stubbs’s visits, Edmisten noticed that other property was missing, though he could not always identify what was missing and did not see Stubbs take it.
- When Knickerbocker returned in May 1993, she found that items present in March were gone, including an Indian war ax, a set of antique dressers, a rifle, and a tractor (among other property), and she reported the missing items to law enforcement.
- Stubbs was charged with knowing and intentional abuse of a vulnerable adult by exploitation under Nebraska law.
- At trial, a key dispute was whether Edmisten qualified as a “vulnerable adult” because he had a “substantial functional impairment.”
- Neighbors testified that Edmisten had mobility problems and sometimes had trouble remembering things.
- A physician who assessed Edmisten testified that Edmisten was mildly senile and had balance problems, was otherwise normal and active for his age, lacked full awareness of the consequences of his actions, and should likely be considered a vulnerable adult.
- The jury found Edmisten had a substantial functional impairment, found Stubbs guilty, and the district court entered judgment on the verdict.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the ground that the evidence did not show a substantial functional impairment; the State sought further review in the Nebraska Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Edmisten had a “substantial functional impairment” and therefore was a “vulnerable adult” under Nebraska’s vulnerable-adult abuse statutes.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing Stubbs’s conviction based on its own assessment of the evidence bearing on Edmisten’s functional impairment and Stubbs’s exploitation.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Edmisten suffered from a substantial functional impairment and qualified as a vulnerable adult.
- The court reinstated and affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction for abuse of a vulnerable adult by exploitation.

## Legal Principles

- When reviewing a criminal conviction for sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court views the evidence most favorably to the State and sustains the verdict if any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- “Substantial functional impairment” does not require total inability to care for oneself; a combination of physical limitations and cognitive limitations may satisfy the statutory definition even if the person can still perform many daily activities.
- The jury, not an appellate court, resolves conflicts in testimony and decides the weight and credibility of evidence concerning the alleged victim’s functional condition.
- Exploitation and vulnerable-adult status may be proven through circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the defendant’s conduct, the victim’s condition, and the surrounding facts.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals improperly displaced the jury’s role when it set aside the verdict; taken together, the testimony about Edmisten’s confusion, mild senility, limited awareness of consequences, and mobility and balance problems permitted a rational jury to find he had a substantial functional impairment, was a vulnerable adult, and was exploited, so the conviction was reinstated.


State v. Stubbs, 562 N.W.2d 547 (1997)