In Bowles v. State, 265 Ark. 457, 579 S.W.2d 596 (1979) the Court reversed and dismissed appellant's conviction for being an accomplice to the delivery of a controlled substance where the only involvement appellant had concerning the sale was introducing the buyer to the seller. In reversing the conviction, the Bowles court quoted from Henderson v. State, 255 Ark. 870, 503 S.W.2d 889 (1974): There is some apparent conflict in the authorities from other jurisdictions as to whether one who recommends, or directs a purchaser to, a seller of illicit drugs is an accomplice of the seller. In Arkansas, an accomplice, under the statute for bidding conviction of a felony on uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, is one who could be convicted of the offense of which the defendant is charged. . . . In Rich v. State, 176 Ark. 1205, 2 S.W.2d 40, we held, upon the authority of Wilson v. State, 124 Ark. 477, 187 S.W. 440, that one who assists a purchaser in buying intoxicating liquors and confines his participation in the transaction exclusively to the buying, not the selling, is not guilty of the offense, and not an accomplice. We have also held that one who was employed as a laborer in the operation of a whiskey still and was an accomplice in its operation and in manufacturing liquor, was not an accomplice of his employer in the possession of the still, because he could not be convicted of the crime of possessing a still, either as a principal or accessory. . . . In Beck v. State, 141 Ark. 102, 216 S.W. 497, we held that one who acted only as the agent of the buyer of intoxicating liquors and had no other interest in the sale, was not an accomplice of the seller. So long as one acts solely on behalf of the purchaser, he is not an accomplice of the seller. . . . (255 Ark. at 878-79, 503 S.W.2d at 894.)