State v. Gladstone 78 Wash.2d 306, 474 P.2d 274 (1970) Thompson was a narc. He went to Gladstone and asked to buy some drugs. Gladstone replied that he didn't have any to sell, but he helpfully provided Thompson with the name and address of Kent. He even drew a helpful map. Thompson went to Kent and bought some drugs. Kent was arrested for selling narcotics and Gladstone was arrested as an accomplice. There was no evidence of any communication between Kent and Gladstone. They weren't in business together or anything. The Trial Court convicted Gladstone of aiding and abetting the sale of drugs. He appealed. The Washington Supreme Court reversed. The Washington Supreme Court found that in order for Gladstone to be criminally culpable, there needed to be a nexus between himself and Kent. Gladstone did not encourage, counsel, command, hire, induced, or procured Kent into selling the drugs. Nor did he take any steps to further the commission of the crime. The Court found that in order to aid and abet another to commit a crimes, it is necessary that a defendant "in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his actions to make it succeed." There is an implication of purposive attitude towards it. Basically, this case said that you cannot be guilty of being an accomplice unless you actively try to make the crime happen. Gladstone probably didn't care one way or the other of Kent sold the drugs. He wasn't getting any benefit from the sale. If anything, Gladstone might have been an accomplice if Thompson had been charged with buying the drugs. He did after all encourage Thompson.