Ex-trustee Teising's case hinges on living at a place vs residing at a location

Former Wabash Township Trustee Jennifer Teising can reside in the township while not actually living in the district, according to her attorney's brief filed Tuesday.

The filing is to rebut the Attorney General's request that the Indiana Supreme Court overturn the state Appeals Court's Dec. 15 decision that overturned Tiesing's conviction of 21 felony counts of theft for receiving her paycheck while living outside of the township.

Those convictions hinge on the fact that Teising did not live in the township after she sold her West Lafayette house in June 2020. After selling her house, Teising changed her residence to 132 Knox Drive, which is the home of a former boyfriend, who testified during Teising's trial that she rarely was there.

"The Knox Drive address was listed as her residence for her Indiana driver’s license; her voter registration; the titles for her vehicles and camper; for her bank; and for her absentee ballot," stated Teising's brief in opposition to transferring to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Teising's attorney, Karen Celestino-Horseman, filed her brief Tuesday arguing that Supreme Court should reject reviewing Teising's case and stating that the Appeal Court's correctly ruled on the former trustee's case.

"The trial court made no finding that Ms. Teising moved her residence outside of the township — a necessary requirement as one does not lose her residence until she has established another," Celetino-Horseman wrote on Teising's behalf. "Without such a finding or evidence of such, the Appellate Court properly determined that Ms. Teising did 'reside within' Wabash Township."

Teising lived in her travel trailer after selling her West Lafayette house. That trailer was parked for months in Anderson, as well as in Panama City Beach, Florida, where Teising was from October 2020 through March 2021.

Celestino-Horseman argues that the COVID-19 pandemic played a role in Teising's decision to live in her travel trailer in another city.

"Like many others," Celestino-Horseman wrote, "Ms. Teising had a choice: she could lock herself in a room and work remotely or, she could keep her residence on Knox Drive and travel, safely cocooned in a small travel trailer and work remotely.

"Because she worked remotely, away from the township during a time when physical presence around others was discouraged, she was charged with theft for accepting her paycheck for the work she did," the brief states. "The Appellate Court correctly reversed her 21 convictions.

"The Appellate Court specifically found that as the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Ms. Teising established a new residence, as required by I.C. § 3-5-5-4(3), she did not lose her residence in Wabash Township and therefore, did not forfeit her office," the brief states.

The brief discussed residency and noted that "Outside of a pandemic, the township trustee is required to 'attend all meetings of the township legislative body.' I.C. § 36-6-4-3(4). 'Attend' means 'to be present at : to go to.’"

During the pandemic, Teising missed many meetings, according to several sources who came forward in December 2020 to inform the Journal & Courier of Teising's absence.

The J&C investigated Teising and broke the news on Dec. 22, 2020, that Teising was living for prolong periods of time outside of the township.

Teising's appeal argues presence in the township versus residing in the township.

"Appellant, Jennifer Teising, respectfully requests that transfer be denied," the brief states. "Should transfer not be denied, Ms. Teising respectfully requests that the constitutional arguments raised on pages 45 through 58 of her appellate brief and her argument that a special prosecutor should have been appointed as raised in her appellate brief on pages 58-60, be reviewed as these arguments were not addressed by the appellate court given that the case was decided on sufficiency grounds."

The Attorney General's office now has 10 days to file a rebuttal brief.

Then the Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether to accept the case. If the Supreme Court does not accept the case, then the Appeals Court ruling overturning Teising's convictions will stand.

Reach Ron Wilkins at rwilkins@jconline.com. Follow on Twitter: @RonWilkins2.

This article originally appeared on Lafayette Journal & Courier: Teising's case hinges on living at a place vs residing at a location