Applying these principles to the facts in this case, the basic question must be whether or not the evidence adduced is consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis that the petitioner is innocent. Johnston v. State, 387 So.2d 891 (Ala.Crim.App.); cert. denied, 387 So.2d 905 (Ala. 1980). We have concluded, from an analysis of the facts, that this conviction is not supported by circumstantial evidence which sustains petitioner's conviction.
There are numerous cases when the appellate courts have reviewed homicide convictions on the grounds of insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. See Graham v. State, 374 So.2d 929 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), writ quashed 374 So.2d 942 (Ala. 1979); Johnston v. State, 387 So.2d 891 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), writ denied 387 So.2d 905 (Ala. 1980); Dolvin v. State, 391 So.2d 133 (Ala. 1980). This Court has established the standard to review such convictions:
Regarding the sufficiency of the fingerprint evidence to sustain a conviction, "the basic question must be whether or not the evidence adduced is consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis that the petitioner is innocent. Johnston v. State, 387 So.2d 891 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 387 So.2d 905 (Ala. 1980)." Ex parte Williams, 468 So.2d 99, 102 (Ala. 1985); see also Thompson v. State, 494 So.2d 925, 929 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986).
It cannot prevail unless it is so strong that it cannot reasonably be reconciled with the theory that the accused is innocent." Johnston v. State, 387 So.2d 891, 904 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 387 So.2d 905 (Ala. 1980). "[T]he mere fact that evidence is of a circumstantial nature does not make it deficient; circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence, provided it points to the guilt of the accused.
The fact that the appellant was seen counting and dividing money with "Pudgey" and "Squirrel" is not sufficient alone to prove that he was involved in the theft, nor are those facts irreconcilable with possible theories of the appellant's innocence. Weeks v. State, 428 So.2d 193 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Ex parte Acree, 63 Ala. 234 (1879); Johnston v. State, 387 So.2d 891 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 387 So.2d 905 (Ala. 1980). Based on the evidence in the case sub judice, a reasonable jury could not have found that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.
Applying these principles to the facts of this case, the question then becomes whether or not the evidence is consistent with the guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and whether a jury might find that the evidence excluded every possible hypothesis except that of guilt. See Cumbo v. State, 368 So.2d 871 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 877 (Ala. 1979); Johnston v. State, 387 So.2d 891 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 387 So.2d 905 (Ala. 1980) and Williams, supra. Having reviewed the facts of this cause, it becomes apparent that the conviction is not supported by circumstantial evidence which sustains appellant's conviction.