OPINION

CRONE, Judge.

Case Summary

Joseph Matheny appeals his conviction for class D felony auto theft. When Matheny was being arrested, a police officer asked him where he lived, and Matheny told the officer. At trial, Matheny's response was used as evidence against him because his residence was close to the location from which the car was stolen. On appeal, he argues that his statement was obtained in violation of his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting it. He also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing his tendered jury instructions regarding the presumption of innocence. We conclude that the police officer did not violate Matheny's constitutional rights by asking him for his address, and therefore the trial court did not err in admitting his statement at trial. We further conclude that although the trial court erred in refusing one of Matheny's tendered jury instructions, the error was harmless. Therefore, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

On March 23, 2012, at approximately 6:20 p.m., Pamela Dedinsky parked her red 2004 Honda Accord near the intersection of Delaware and Ohio Streets in Indianapolis. At about 9:30 p.m., after dining at a restaurant, Dedinsky returned to the parking space and found that her car was gone. She went back to the restaurant and called the police to report that her car was missing. Earlier that day, Dedinsky had given her daughter permission to drive the car using a spare set of keys. This set of keys was later determined to be missing. Dedinsky did not know Matheny.

On March 24, 2012, at approximately 2:20 a.m., Indianapolis Police Officer Brad Alford was on patrol near 38th Street and Audubon Road and noticed a car, later identified as Dedinsky's Accord, with heavy front-end damage in a ditch with its lights on and a gray van backed up to it. As he drove by, Officer Alford saw a man, later identified as Matheny, sitting in the driver's seat of the car with the door open. Officer Alford returned to the Accord because he believed that its condition indicated a property damage accident. Officer Alford shined a spotlight on the Accord and saw Matheny exit the car. Officer Alford walked toward the vehicles. He noticed that Matheny was wobbling and intoxicated. Matheny had a smell of alcohol on his breath, slurred speech, and watery eyes. Matheny also had a laceration above his right eyebrow with blood trickling down. Officer Alford asked Matheny what had happened, and Matheny said that "a friend from 30th and Emerson" had offered him $20 to get the Accord out of the ditch. Tr. at 214. Matheny later stated that he had been a passenger in the Accord after a friend "picked him up at 38th Street and Emerson and they were riding around." Id. at 237.

Officer Marc Klonne arrived at the scene as backup. The officers observed that the van was undamaged and was tied to the Accord in order to tow it. For safety reasons, the officers asked the van driver to remove the tow rope from the Accord and called for a tow truck. Because the van driver had been acting as a "Good Samaritan" and had not been involved in an accident with the Accord, the officers told the van driver that he could leave. Id. at 242.

Officer Klonne relayed the Accord's license plate number to dispatch and was informed that the Accord had been reported stolen. Officers Alford and Klonne then approached Matheny, who was standing by the Accord. Officer Alford saw Matheny take a step back, move his right hand behind his right leg, and drop something on the ground. Officer Alford shined his flashlight on the ground and saw a car key inscribed with an "H" logo. When the Accord was later towed, the tow truck driver inserted this key into the ignition and turned it to shift gear.1 The officers handcuffed Matheny. They asked Matheny to identify himself, but he refused. During the patdown safety search for weapons, Officer Klonne felt a wallet in Matheny's pocket. Because they had been unable to identify Matheny, Officer Klonne removed an Indiana identification card ("ID") from the wallet. Joseph Matheny was the name on the ID card. To confirm whether the ID was in fact Matheny's, Officer Klonne asked Matheny for his address, and Matheny did not answer. Officer Klonne also asked Matheny several times if he lived at the address on the ID. Finally, Matheny said that he did not live at the address on the ID and that he lived at Wheeler Mission.

As Officer Alford was handcuffing Matheny, Officer Kari Pennington arrived at the scene. She also saw the car key on the ground below Matheny's hand. She read Matheny his Miranda rights. Officer Klonne called the medics and performed an initial sweep of the vehicle, observing everything in plain view. He saw that the driver's side airbag had deployed. The passenger's side airbag was not deployed, and there were items on the passenger seat.

On March 26, 2012, the State charged Matheny with class D felony auto theft and class B misdemeanor public intoxication. On April 12, 2012, Matheny filed a motion to suppress evidence. Following the hearing, the trial court concluded that Matheny had been too intoxicated to knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights and therefore suppressed all Matheny's statements made after he was taken into custody, except for those concerning his identifying information. Id. at 68.

At trial, Matheny objected to the admission of his statement that he lived at Wheeler Mission. Officer Klonne testified that his reason for asking Matheny to state his address was to verify the information on the ID. The trial court concluded that "routine questions for the purposes of identification, such as name, address, height, weight are not within the purview of Miranda," overruled Matheny's objection, and admitted the statement. Id. at 263. Officer Klonne testified that Wheeler Mission was located at 248 North Delaware Street, which is close to where Dedinsky's car was parked.

The jury found Matheny guilty as charged. Matheny appeals his conviction for auto theft. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

Discussion and Decision

I. Admissibility of Mat hen y's Statement

Matheny argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting his statement to police that he lived at Wheeler Mission. "The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing that the trial court abused its discretion." Furnish v. State, 779 N.E.2d 576, 578 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) trans. denied (2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted). "An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court." Washington v. State, 784 N.E.2d 584, 587 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (citation omitted). "In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we do not reweigh evidence and consider conflicting evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's ruling." Mogg v. State, 918 N.E.2d 750, 755 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). We may affirm the trial court's ruling if it is sustainable on any legal basis supported by the record. Scott v. State, 883 N.E.2d 147, 152 (Ind.Ct.App.2008).

Matheny contends that his statement that he lived at Wheeler Mission was obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." "At its core, the [Fifth Amendment] privilege reflects our fierce `unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt.'" Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 596, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990) (quoting Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 212, 108 S.Ct. 2341, 101 L.Ed.2d 184 (1988)). The "privilege against self-incrimination protects individuals not only from the legal compulsion to testify in a criminal courtroom, but also from the informal compulsion exerted by law-enforcement officers during in-custody questioning." Id. at 589, 110 S.Ct. 2638. Thus, when a person is in custody2 and is subject to interrogation, "the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); see also Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980)3 ("[T]he special procedural safeguards outlined in Miranda are not required where a suspect is simply taken into custody, but rather where a subject in custody is subjected to interrogation.") (emphasis added). The safeguards outlined in Miranda also apply to the functional equivalent of interrogation by the police. Innis, 446 U.S. at 301-02, 100 S.Ct. 1682. "That is to say, the term `interrogation' under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect." Id. at 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682 (footnotes omitted). Verbal statements that are both "testimonial" in nature and elicited during custodial interrogation are protected. Muniz, 496 U.S. at 590, 110 S.Ct. 2638. "Whenever a suspect is asked for a response requiring him to communicate an express or implied assertion of fact or belief, the suspect confronts the `trilemma' of truth, falsity, or silence, and hence the response (whether based on truth or falsity) contains a testimonial component." Id. at 596-97, 110 S.Ct. 2638 (footnote omitted). In sum, "[s]tatements that are the product of custodial interrogation prior to the advisement of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination are generally inadmissible." Bailey v. State, 763 N.E.2d 998, 1001 (Ind.2002) (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602).

Nevertheless, there are some police questions which do not fall within Miranda's purview. Questions regarding "name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and current age" are outside the scope of Miranda's coverage. Muniz, 496 U.S. at 601, 110 S.Ct. 2638 (citations and quotation marks omitted);4 Loving v. State, 647 N.E.2d 1123, 1126 (Ind.1995) (where police handcuffed defendant and took him to police station for questioning as witness to fatal shooting, police questions regarding defendant's name, current address, date of birth, and social security number did not require Miranda warnings); Hatcher v. State, 274 Ind. 230, 232-33, 410 N.E.2d 1187, 1189 (1980) ("An officer may ask routine questions for the purpose of obtaining basic identifying information without giving Miranda warnings."); Castillo-Aguilar v. State, 962 N.E.2d 667, 671 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) ("`Limited and focused inquiries on the part of police normally attendant to arrest and custody do not constitute custodial interrogation.'") (quoting Curry v. State, 643 N.E.2d 963, 977 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied), trans. denied.

Matheny contends that the "manner in which Officer Klonne elicited the statement from [him] that he lived at Wheeler Mission shows that the inquiry was not made for recordkeeping purposes or as part of the booking process following arrest," and "the statement was testimonial as the fact Mr. Matheny lived at Wheeler Mission was an important piece of evidence in the State's case against [him]." Appellant's Br. at 4. Here, Officer Klonne testified that his reason for asking Matheny to state his address was to verify the information on the ID. The fact that Officer Klonne asked Matheny his address more than once does not persuade us that the questions were anything other than the officer's attempt to obtain accurate identifying information. As such, the officer's questions were outside the scope of Miranda. See Muniz, 496 U.S. at 601, 110 S.Ct. 2638; but cf. Castillo-Aguilar, 962 N.E.2d at 671 (concluding that the information sheet defendant was asked to complete at police station after being arrested for driving without a license constituted interrogation because it included questions such as how long defendant had lived in Goshen and name of his car insurance company). The fact that Matheny's residence was ultimately incriminating does not retroactively transform Officer's Klonne routine identification questions into interrogation for purposes of Miranda.5 Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Matheny's answer.

II. Jury Instructions

Matheny also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing his tendered jury instructions. Instruction No. 1 read,

Appellant's App. at 57 (emphasis added).

Id. at 62 (emphasis added).

We review a trial court's decision to give or refuse a tendered instruction for an abuse of discretion. Dora v. State, 783 N.E.2d 322, 326 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) trans. denied. In reviewing the trial court's decision, "`we consider (1) whether the instruction correctly states the law, (2) is supported by the evidence in the record, and (3) is not covered in substance by other instructions.'" O'Connell v. State, 970 N.E.2d 168, 172 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Munford v. State, 923 N.E.2d 11, 14 (Ind.Ct.App.2010)). A defendant is entitled to a reversal if he affirmatively demonstrates that the instructional error prejudiced his substantial rights. Buckner v. State, 857 N.E.2d 1011, 1015 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006).

Both parties acknowledge our supreme court's holding in Robey v. State, 454 N.E.2d 1221 (Ind.1983), that "[a]n instruction... which advises the jury that the presumption of innocence prevails until the close of the trial, and that it is the duty of the jury to reconcile the evidence upon the theory of the defendant's innocence if they could do so, must be given if requested." Id. at 1222. Further, the State acknowledges our recent decision in Lee v. State, 964 N.E.2d 859 (Ind.Ct.App.2012), trans. denied, in which we held that the trial court's rejection of the defendant's tendered instruction containing the language emphasized in Matheny's tendered instructions resulted in reversible error. Id. at 863, 865. The State, however, argues that we should not find reversible error in this case because Instruction No. 1 is an incomplete statement of the law, the substance of Instruction No. 6 was adequately covered by other instructions, and that even if it was error to refuse Matheny's tendered instructions, the error was harmless.

We agree with the State that Instruction No. 1 is incomplete with regard to its third paragraph:

Appellant's App. at 57. In Simpson v. State, 915 N.E.2d 511 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) trans. denied (2010), we concluded that the above language was incomplete without the following companion paragraph:

Id. at 519-20 (quoting Robey, 454 N.E.2d at 1222).6 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Instruction No. 1.7

As for Matheny's tendered Instruction No. 6, the State does not argue that it is incomplete, but argues that the trial court's Instruction No. 14 adequately expressed the concept that the jury should attempt to fit the evidence to the presumption that the accused is innocent. Instruction No. 14 read,

Appellee's Br. at 13 (quoting Appellant's App. at 82) (emphasis Appellee's). We disagree that the emphasized language in Instruction No. 14 adequately conveys the essential principle that the jury should attempt to fit the evidence to the presumption that the accused is innocent. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing Instruction No. 6.8

Nevertheless, we agree with the State that the trial court's refusal of Instruction No. 6 was harmless error. Matheny failed to respond to the State's harmless error argument. Failure to respond to an issue is akin to failing to file a brief. Cox v. State, 780 N.E.2d 1150, 1162 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). "This failure does not relieve us of our obligation to correctly apply the law to the facts in the record." Id. However, we are not responsible for developing an argument on behalf of the appellant. Id.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that "the failure to give a requested instruction on the presumption of innocence does not in and of itself violate the Constitution." Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786, 789, 99 S.Ct. 2088, 60 L.Ed.2d 640 (1979). "[S]uch a failure must be evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances — including all the instructions to the jury, the arguments of counsel, whether the weight of the evidence was overwhelming, and other relevant factors — to determine whether the defendant received a constitutionally fair trial." Id.; see also Vaughan v. State, 446 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind.Ct. App.1983) (noting that Indiana followed Whorton); but cf. Lee, 964 N.E.2d at 864-65 (concluding that trial court's refusal to give instruction on presumption of innocence was reversible error where State failed to respond to defendant's argument that error was not harmless). Generally, "[e]rrors in the giving or refusing of instructions are harmless where a conviction is clearly sustained by the evidence and the jury could not properly have found otherwise." Smith v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1150, 1152 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) trans. denied.

Here, the jury was instructed that Matheny was presumed innocent and was not required to prove his innocence or to prove or explain anything. Appellant's App. at 79 (Instruction No. 11). The jury was also informed that the State bore the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 80 (Instruction No. 12). The jury was further instructed that where proof of guilt is by circumstantial evidence only, it must be so conclusive and point so convincingly to the guilt of the accused that the evidence excludes every reasonable theory of innocence. Id. at 82 (Instruction No. 14).

During voir dire, defense counsel stated, "We presume Mr. Matheny's innocent.... if you presume they're guilty instead of innocent you might convict someone falsely." Tr. at 131, 133. During final argument, defense counsel told the jury, "He's presumed innocent. You must fit every reasonable hypothesis with his innocence and assume he's innocent and start from that and not the other way around." Id. at 314.

Finally, the evidence does not support a reasonable theory of innocence. Matheny was found in possession of Dedinsky's car at 2:20 a.m., between five and eight hours after the theft. He was seen sitting in the driver's seat. The car was in a ditch with substantial front-end damage, the airbag in the driver's side had deployed, and Matheny had a bloody cut above his right eyebrow. Matheny had the key to the car but surreptitiously dropped it on the ground. He gave conflicting stories about his involvement with the car to the police. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the trial court's refusal to give Instruction No. 6 was harmless error.

Affirmed.

MATHIAS, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur.