Both defendants denied any involvement in the crimes. According to appellant, his fingerprints were present because of that prior larceny and not because of the robbery of February 7. Keats denied having seen Floyd present on that occasion and did not know of any shortage in her register on January 20. The evidence also showed that, contrary to the description given by Keats, Floyd is about six or seven inches taller than King and somewhat thinner. Floyd mischaracterizes the Commonwealth's evidence.
Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed, resolves a matter in issue.
Conversely, circumstantial evidence, even if accepted as true, requires additional reasoning to accept the proposition to which the evidence is directed. When a conviction is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, all necessary circumstances proved must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. . . . The circumstances of motive, time, place, means, and conduct must all concur to form an unbroken chain which links the defendant to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Floyd ignores the direct evidence offered by the Commonwealth. The victim testified that she was alone in the store and two men came in immediately after she opened for business.