With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for the court. As to the distribution charge, Price and Ellis clearly are not accomplices under settled South Dakota law. “ ‘An accomplice is one who is liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial. To render one an accomplice he must in some manner knowingly and with criminal intent participate, associate or concur with another in the commission of a crime.’” State v. Fox, 313 N.W.2d 38, 40 (S.D.1981) (quoting State v. Johnson, 81 S.D. 600, 606, 139 N.W.2d 232, 236 (1965) (emphasis supplied)). Busack was charged with distributing methamphetamine to Price and Ellis. Neither of these witnesses could be charged with distributing to themselves, therefore they were not accomplices to these acts. See State v. Bufener, 401 N.W.2d 740, 743 (S.D.1987) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, under facts demonstrating more

A: holding failure to instruct jury as to requirement of corroboration of accomplice witness testimony was error
B: holding that a private citizen acting as undercover agent is not an accomplice witness so long as he does not bring about the crime
C: holding that an adverse inference cannot be drawn from a defendants failure to call a witness if the states evidence establishes that the witness is an accomplice who would be entitled to assert a fifth amendment privilege
D: holding that witness was not an accomplice in distributing marijuana to himself
D.