At the close of all the evidence, Hardley renewed his motion for a judgment of acquittal. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence and overruled his application for rehearing. In his petition to this Court, Hardley argues that there was insufficient corroboration to support his conviction. The requirement for corroboration of an accomplice's testimony cannot be satisfied by the testimony of still other accomplices. The accomplice testimony must be eliminated, and then if, upon examination of all other evidence, there is sufficient evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, there is sufficient corroboration.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to show such corroboration.
The corroboration of an accomplice may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Nonaccomplice evidence which merely confirms the way and manner in which the crime was committed, but which is colorless and neutral insofar as the defendant's connection with the crime is concerned, is not sufficient corroboration to warrant submission of the case to the jury. Noteworthily, the State's proof against Hardley was not substantially better at the close of all the evidence, when Hardley renewed his motion. 38 Ala. App. Goodwin , supra .