## Facts

- A Tacoma police informant, posing as a marijuana buyer, went to Bruce W. Gladstone’s residence seeking to purchase marijuana.
- Gladstone stated he did not have marijuana to sell.
- Gladstone identified Robert Kent as someone who might be willing to sell marijuana and provided directions (a sketch/map) to Kent’s location.
- Gladstone did not contact Kent, arrange a meeting, participate in the later transaction, or receive any benefit from it.
- The informant went to Kent’s residence and purchased marijuana from Kent; Gladstone was not present.
- Gladstone was charged and convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting Kent’s unlawful sale of marijuana under RCW 9.01.030.
- The trial court deferred sentence and placed Gladstone on probation; Gladstone appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that a defendant only identified a possible seller and gave directions to the seller’s location, without any agreement, communication, or coordinated action with the seller, is sufficient to prove aiding and abetting the seller’s unlawful sale under RCW 9.01.030.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded with directions to dismiss the charge.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove that Gladstone aided and abetted Kent’s sale.
- The court concluded that providing a name and directions, without proof of association or connection with the principal’s criminal act, did not establish accomplice liability for the sale.

## Legal Principles

- Under RCW 9.01.030, accomplice liability requires proof that the defendant did something in association or connection with the principal to accomplish the offense.
- Mere provision of information or a referral to a potential seller, standing alone, does not show that the defendant joined the principal’s criminal venture or acted with the purpose of making the specific crime succeed.
- Aiding and abetting focuses on participation in, or purposeful assistance to, the principal’s commission of the charged offense; facilitation that lacks a demonstrated nexus to the principal’s act is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court set aside Gladstone’s accomplice conviction because the State proved only that he provided a potential buyer with a seller’s name and directions, without evidence of any coordinated relationship, agreement, benefit, or shared intent with the seller to accomplish the unlawful sale.


State v. Gladstone, 78 Wash. 2d 306, 474 P.2d 274 (Wash. 1970) (en banc)