The state attorney general’s office petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court Friday to hear the case of former Wabash Township trustee Jennifer Teising, and answer questions around whether she continued to reside in the township while traveling for long periods.
Teising was initially found guilty of taking her trustee salary while not a resident of the township.
That decision was overturned by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which found that Teising had not established a residency outside of the township and so still maintained her residency there.
On Friday, judges grilled both sides about whether it was appropriate for the high court to take up the case.
During oral arguments, Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush noted that the state needed to prove Teising’s intent to establish a residence outside the township.
“I get that there is all kinds of behavior going on here, but when you look at a criminal statute as opposed to a civil statute, the state has the burden,” she told the state’s attorney, Andrew Kobe.
Cobe argued that Teising was aware of the law around residency, and set up a “sham residence” while spending less than 10 percent of her time in the district over a nine-month period.
Judges also asked the state’s attorney why the case needed to be handled as a criminal felony case at all.
“Do we really need to bring felony charges against a vagabond wandering trustee?” Judge Mark Massa asked Kobe.
He noted that it had to be determined that Teising lived outside of the district before she could really be charged with theft.
“How do you bootstrap a felony after the fact with a later finding that she vacated office?” Massa asked.
Massa also asked the state’s attorney whether it would have impacted their case if Teising had traveled the same amount, but purchased a second property within the district – instead of setting up a residency with her former boyfriend.
“I think that would be a much harder case for the state to prove,” Kobe said.
Teising’s attorney, Karen Celestino-Horseman, asked judges whether elected officials would have the “quality” of their time spent in a district analyzed – and argued the courts shouldn’t get involved in that kind of question.
Rush asked Teising’s attorney about the different language around residency for local elected officials and state officials.
“In looking at some of those old cases – the Cornwall case – why isn’t it reasonable that our framers and ratifiers expected more out of local officials by putting that specific language in, as opposed to the language that applies to statewide office holders?” Rush asked.
Celestino-Horseman argued that if the legislature wanted to require that officeholders must physically be in their office for a specified number of days, that was something they could have done.
Teising’s attorney also argued that technology has changed the requirements for residency -- an idea judges appeared to push back on.
It’s not clear when the Supreme Court will release its decision on the matter.
