Larry A. Conn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 46A03-1604-CR-1007

On Aug. 7, 2015, LaPorte County officer stopped Larry Conn for not wearing a seatbelt and asked for his license; Conn initially gave a false name and birthdate and later admitted his license was suspended for life as a habitual traffic violator.
Officer smelled alcohol, observed slurred speech and swaying; Conn refused field sobriety tests and officers found containers with alcohol-like liquid in the vehicle; Conn was charged with operating after a lifetime suspension (Level 5 felony), false informing (Class B misdemeanor), and operating while intoxicated (Class C misdemeanor).
At trial Conn testified he drove because his mother (with Alzheimer’s/dementia) reported seeing her deceased husband—he claimed an extreme-emergency defense.
The jury convicted Conn of operating after a lifetime suspension and false informing, acquitted him of OUI; the court sentenced him to 3 years (advisory) for the felony and 90 days for the misdemeanor, to run concurrently.
Conn appealed, arguing (1) admission of his statement that he was a habitual traffic offender was unduly prejudicial under Evid. R. 403, (2) insufficient evidence (including his extreme-emergency defense), and (3) sentence inappropriate.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admission of Conn’s statement that he was a habitual traffic offender (Evid. R. 403)	Testimony that Conn admitted he was a habitual traffic offender was unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded	Statement was relevant, not inflammatory, and cumulative to certified driving record showing "habitual traffic violator—life"	Court affirmed admission: no undue prejudice and evidence was cumulative
Sufficiency of evidence for operating after lifetime suspension (defense: extreme emergency)	Conn argued he drove out of necessity to save his mother and thus established an extreme-emergency defense	Jury may disbelieve defendant; burden to prove emergency is on defendant and the evidence permitted disbelief	Court held evidence sufficient: jury could reject his emergency claim and convict
Sufficiency of evidence for false informing	Conn contended insufficient proof that he knowingly gave false information	Officer testified Conn gave the wrong name and birthdate during investigation	Court held evidence sufficient to support false informing conviction
Appropriateness of sentence under App. R. 7(B)	Conn argued sentence was inappropriate given offense nature and his character	Trial court imposed advisory term (3 years) and 90 days concurrent; defendant has extensive prior convictions including multiple DWIs and suspended-license offenses	Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriate given repeated behavior and offenses

Pribie v. State, 46 N.E.3d 1241 (Ind. Ct. App.) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Davis v. Garrett, 887 N.E.2d 942 (Ind. Ct. App.) (erroneous admission of merely cumulative evidence is not reversible)
Harbert v. State, 51 N.E.3d 267 (Ind. Ct. App.) (standard for sufficiency review—no reweighing or credibility assessment)
Knox v. State, 13 N.E.3d 899 (Ind. Ct. App.) (jury free to wholly disregard defendant’s testimony)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind.) (principles of Appellate Rule 7(B) sentence review)
Kennedy v. State, 934 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App.) (defendant bears burden to show sentence in appropriate under Rule 7(B))
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind.) (limitations on appellate review of trial court’s weighing of aggravating/mitigating factors)