Martel D. Washington, Below v. State of Delaware, Below — Ridgely, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Ridgely dissented from the majority's conclusion that inconsistencies in the State's evidence required acquittal. He would hold that the accomplice's testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, permitted a rational jury to find Washington guilty as an accomplice because the testimony was not inherently incredible, self-destructive, or opposed to known physical facts.