State v. Jensen

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether Earleen Jensen and Justin Jensen were residents of Royal, Nebraska, for purposes of voting in a village trustee election. The court held that domicile depended on bodily presence and intent, and that habitual presence was not required to establish residence under Nebraska election law. It reversed the district court judgments and remanded with directions to dismiss the illegal-voting complaints with prejudice.

Holdings

1. Habitual presence at a particular residence is not dispositive and is not required to establish domicile or residence for purposes of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-1528. Residence is determined from the totality of the circumstances, including bodily presence and intent to remain, as reflected in the statutory definition of residence.
2. Justin Jensen was a resident of Royal and did not illegally vote under § 32-1528. His bodily presence at the Ryan Street home, expressed intention to live there, property improvements, voter registration and repeated voting at that address, and explanation that his stays at the farm were medically motivated established Royal as his domicile.
3. Earleen Jensen was a resident of Royal and did not illegally vote under § 32-1528. Her continued physical connection to the Johnson Street home and intention to return there established Royal as her domicile despite her staying at the farm to care for Justin.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Justin Jensen's bodily presence at and stated intention to return to his Ryan Street home established residence or domicile in Royal despite his spending more nights at the family farm because of his medical condition.
2. Whether Earleen Jensen's bodily presence, settled connection, and intention to return to her Johnson Street home established residence in Royal despite her staying at the family farm to care for Justin.
3. Whether habitual physical presence is required to establish residence for voting purposes under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1528 and 32-116(1).
4. Whether the district court erred in affirming the county court's illegal-voting convictions.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded