Judging Credibility of Fact Witness

The State has a burden of proving each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 11 Del. C. 301. State v. Matushefske, Del. Supr., 59 Del. 163, 215 A.2d 443, 9 Storey 163 (1965). As established law indicates, "a reasonable doubt is not a vague, whimsical or possible doubt, 'but such a doubt as intelligent, reasonable and impartial men may honestly entertain after a conscience consideration of the case." Matushefske, 215 A.2d at 444. "A reasonable doubt means a substantial well- founded doubt arising from a candid and impartial consideration of all the evidence or want of evidence." State v. Wright, Del. Gen. Ass. 25 Del. 393, 2 Boyce 393, 79 A. 399 (1911). The Court as the trier of fact is the sole judge of the credibility of each fact witness. If the Court finds the evidence presented to be in conflict it is the Court's duty to reconcile these conflicts, if reasonably possible, so as to make one harmonious story of it all. If the Court cannot do this, the Court must give credit to the portion of the testimony which, in the Court's judgment is most worthy of credit and disregard any portion of the testimony which in the Court's judgment is unworthy of credit. In doing so, the Court takes into the consideration the demeanor of the fact witnesses, their apparent fairness in giving their testimony, their opportunities in hearing and knowing the facts about which they testified, and any basis or interest they may have concerning the nature of the case.