Hardman v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed Hardman's conviction for carrying a concealed deadly weapon. It held that his evidence did not support a choice-of-evils defense because carrying a weapon in anticipation of a possible future attack was not an emergency response to an imminent harm, and it held that redacting interview statements about his homelessness and employment did not violate D.R.E. 106 because those statements were relevant only to the unavailable defense and carried a substantial risk of jury sympathy.