The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal is publishing United States v. Namey, 2004 FED App. 0104P (6th Cir. April 15, 2004). The court affirmed a conviction for wilful failure to pay child support, rejecting defendant’s argument that the federal law was unconstitutionally vague for failing to define the term “resides.”
The panel writes (excerpt):
Namey’s first contention is that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and has led to arbitrary enforcement. He argues that the failure of the statute to define “resides” led to an arbitrary result, pointing to evidence of his continued economic and familial ties to Ohio. We review de novo the legal question whether a criminal statute is unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Hill, 167 F.3d 1055, 1063 (6th Cir. 1999).
When the common meaning of a word provides adequate notice of the prohibited conduct, the statute’s failure to define the term will not render the statute void for vagueness. United States v. Haun, 90 F.3d 1096, 1101 (6th Cir. 1996). Where a term “has a commonly accepted meaning, an ordinary person would be able to recognize whether the conduct in question is criminal.” Id. The term “reside” has a commonly accepted meaning. Dictionaries define “reside” as “[t]o live in a place for a permanent or extended time,” WEBSTER’S II NEW COLLEGE DICTIONARY 943 (2001), or to “[l]ive, dwell . . . to have a settled abode for a time . . . .” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979). An ordinary person would understand that a person resides where the person regularly lives or has a home as opposed to where the person might visit or vacation.
Namey argues that the term “reside” may have two separate meanings, with one equating to the definition of residence and the other equating to “domicile.” The argument is without merit. We have made it clear that residence and domicile are distinct concepts:
Generally, an individual’s “domicile” is his “true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment.” It is the place to which he returns whenever he is absent. “Residence,” in contrast, requires both physical presence and an intention to remain some indefinite period of time, but not necessarily permanently. Thus, domicile is an individual’s permanent place of abode where he need not be physically present, and residence is where the individual is physically present much of the time. An individual consequently may have several residences, but only one domicile.
Eastman v. Univ. of Michigan, 30 F.3d 670, 672-73 (6th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted).
How does this work re military and service member’s home of record? Can they use their home of record and live somewhere else while legally domiciled in a different state?