Teising v. State

• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Molter, Justice.
• Citation: Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780 (Ind. 2024)
• Docket Number: Supreme Court Case No. 24S-CR-55
• Decision Date: 15 February 2024
• Parties: Jennifer R. TEISING, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
• topic: Civil Procedure,Public Sector Law

226 N.E.3d 780

Jennifer R. TEISING, Appellant (Defendant below),

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

Supreme Court Case No. 24S-CR-55

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Argued: June 23, 2023

Filed February 15, 2024

Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court 5, No. 79D05-2105-F6-368, The Honorable Kristen E. McVey, Judge ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Karen Celestino-Horseman, Austin & Jones, P.C., Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Andrew A. Kobe, Justin F. Roebel, Angela Sanchez, Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 22A-CR-548

Molter, Justice.

Article 6, Section 6 of the Indiana Constitution requires that all township officers "shall reside within their respective … townships," and they forfeit their position if they don’t. Defendant Jennifer Teising resided within West Lafayette’s Wabash Township when she was elected township trustee in November 2018. But after the COVID-19 pandemic spread to Indiana, she sold her home, bought a travel trailer, and left for a nomadic life while continuing to work remotely. Sometimes she stayed in Florida, sometimes she stayed with friends in Anderson, Indiana, and sometimes she traveled. But she hardly ever stayed in Wabash Township. And despite growing controversy over her residency, she refused to resign.

Usually, the State resolves residency disputes like this through a civil quo warranto action to remove the official from office. But here it chose stronger medicine. It convened a grand jury, which indicted Teising for twenty-one counts of theft on the theory that by spending most of her time outside the township, she forfeited her office. And once she forfeited her office, none of the twenty-one paychecks she kept collecting belonged to her even though she continued working as the trustee remotely. After the parties agreed to a bench trial, the trial court convicted her on all counts.

A unanimous Court of Appeals panel vacated the convictions in a published opinion. The panel concluded Teising never stopped complying with the constitutional residency requirement because she never established a legal domicile somewhere else, and she therefore didn’t forfeit her office. We now grant transfer, and we too conclude Teising’s convictions must be vacated, but for a different reason. We don’t need to reach the constitutional residency question because, either way, the State didn’t introduce evidence that Teising acted with the criminal intent required for theft—evidence that she believed she wasn’t supposed to continue collecting her salary for the work she kept performing remotely. And without criminal intent, the only available remedies were civil, such as a quo warranto action to remove Teising from office or a conversion claim to recover allegedly misappropriated money.

Facts and Procedural History

Teising was elected trustee of Wabash Township in November 2018, and she took office the following January for a four-year term. Ind. Code § 36-6-4-2(c). At that time, she owned a house in Wabash Township on Princess Drive.

About a year later, Teising briefly ran for county commissioner before withdrawing from the race and saying she was "probably going to … sell [her] house, resign [as trustee], and move to Florida." Tr. Vol. 2 at 238. She asked the Wabash Township Board President, Michelle Wietbrock, whether Wietbrock would replace her after she resigned. But when Wietbrock declined, Teising changed her mind and decided not to resign.

Teising continued waffling after the COVID-19 pandemic spread to Indiana and the first lockdowns were put in place. She again said she planned to sell her house, resign as trustee, and move away. This time, she did sell her house, moving some of her things into her mother’s home in Vincennes and the rest into her ex-boyfriend’s home on Knox Drive in Wabash Township. She also changed both her BMV and voter registration address to that Knox Drive address. And she bought a truck and recreational travel trailer.

Even though Teising began to use the Knox Drive home as her personal address, cell phone records reflect she rarely stayed there. From June 17, 2020 through March 19, 2021, Teising spent only twenty-seven overnights there and seven overnights at another address in Lafayette. She spent the other 241 days traveling the country on trips to Minnesota, Colorado, and Florida. She also visited other cities in Indiana. During her travels, Teising often stayed with friends in Anderson, Indiana who considered Teising part of their COVID-19 "bubble." Tr. Vol. 3 at 106.

Throughout these travels, Teising continued working remotely as trustee. Teising’s office manager, Tricia Fultz, kept the office open and continued working there in person. Teising maintained access to her trustee email account, and Fultz scanned and uploaded documents that came into the office so Teising could view them remotely. Fultz would also send Teising pictures of important emails and documents via cellphone so Teising could review them immediately. The Indiana State Police determined that from June 1, 2020 through January 11, 2021, Teising contacted Fultz’s cellphone more often than any other phone number.

Teising maintained she was complying with the requirements of her office while working remotely. In November 2020, Wietbrock informed Teising that township residents and elected officials had begun to express concerns about her residency. In her email response, Teising said: "I have complied with the requirements of the office." Ex. Vol. 2 at 75. And on December 22, 2020, the Lafayette Journal & Courier published a story about Teising and her travels outside of Wabash Township. Teising responded to the Journal & Couriers request for comment and said that the Knox Drive address was her residence. She also stated: "I have definitely abided by the law. I’ve done all the requirements of my office, and Gm doing the job of my office." App. Vol. II at 136.

Her responses did not quell the controversy, and a grand jury indicted her on twenty-one counts of theft. The indictment alleged that Teising no longer resided within Wabash Township, so she forfeited her office and the right to continue collecting her salary. Thus, the twenty-one paychecks she collected after she allegedly moved away constituted theft.

Teising filed pre-trial motions for a change of venue and the appointment of a special prosecutor. But the trial court denied both motions. After Teising waived her right to a jury trial, the court conducted a bench trial on December 13 through December 15, 2021.

The trial court then found Teising guilty of all twenty-one theft counts. It concluded that "upon the Defendant’s move out of Wabash Township in June 2020 to live a nomadic RV lifestyle, she ceased to … make her ‘true, permanent and fixed’ home in Wabash Township, West Lafayette, Indiana and forfeited the office of Township Trustee." Id. at 26. And "[u]pon forfeiture of the office of Wabash Township Trustee, the Defendant’s continued collection of her salary constituted the crime of Theft." Id. The court then imposed an aggregate 1,095-day sentence with 847 days suspended, leaving 124 days to be served in the Tippecanoe County Jail and 124 days to be served in community corrections.

Teising appealed her convictions, and her sentence was stayed pending appeal. See Teising v. State, 201 N.E.3d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). Applying Indiana Code Chapter 3-5-5, which establishes statutory residency requirements, a unanimous Court of Appeals panel agreed with Teising and reversed her convictions. The panel reasoned that "Teising could not lose her residency in Wabash Township until she established a new residence elsewhere." Id. at 219. And the trial court erred when it found Teising guilty of theft because "the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Teising intended to abandon her Wabash Township domicile and establish a new residence" outside the township. Id. at 220.

The State petitioned for transfer to this Court, which we now grant through a separate order, thereby vacating the Court of Appeals opinion under Appellate Rule 58(A).

Standard of Review

[1–3] The appellate standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence challenges is well settled. "It is the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction." Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). Therefore, the "reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses," and it leaves those determinations to the fact-finder. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). We consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and will affirm a defendant’s conviction unless "no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000).

Discussion and Decision

Teising argues we should vacate her convictions for many reasons which all relate to two overarching points. First, she says she never stopped residing within Wabash Township, so she never forfeited her office. And second, even if she did forfeit her office, the State’s remedy was to remove her from office through a civil quo warranto action, not to convict her of theft.

Her first point requires interpreting and applying Article 6, Section 6’s residency requirement, but the "longstanding principle of constitutional avoidance … weighs against deciding constitutional questions not absolutely necessary to a merits disposition." Ind. Land Tr. Co. v. XL Inv. Props. LLC, 155 N.E.3d 1177, 1182 (Ind. 2020) (quotations omitted). And here, we don’t need to decide the constitutional residency question because we agree with Teising’s second point.

The State’s theory of the case is that Teising stopped residing in the township, so she...