Is a purchaser of illegal drugs an accomplice of the seller?

The rule in California is stated differently, but draws the same distinction. " 'The purchaser of narcotics is not an accomplice of the seller, as the offense of the purchaser is "possession" and not "selling." [Citations], exceptions to the above view of an accomplice are recognized in case of a conspiracy . . . . In People v. Lima (1944) 25 Cal.2d 573, 154 P.2d 698, the court recognized: 'It is now settled in this state that the thief and the receiver of stolen property are not accomplices [citation].' (25 Cal.2d at p. 576.) It noted a well-established exception to the general rule, and concluded: 'Where, as here, the prosecution evidence discloses the existence of a conspiracy or agreement whereby the principal prosecution witnesses were to steal and defendant was to purchase the stolen property, it is both logical and reasonable to hold that they are accomplices in the offense or offenses resulting from execution of such plan.' " (People v. Chrisman (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 425, 437-438.)