court noted that presence at the crime scene or failure to inform law enforcement officers of a crime does not make one an accomplice as a matter of law. In Atkinson, supra, this court stated: Relevant factors in determining the connection of an accomplice to a crime are the presence of the accused in proximity of a crime, the opportunity to commit the crime, and an association with a person involved in a manner suggestive of joint participation. Id. A defendant is an accomplice so long as the defendant renders the requisite aid or encouragement to the principal with regard to the offense at issue, irrespective of the fact that defendant was not present at the murder scene and did not directly commit the murder. See Sumlin v. State, 273 Ark. 185, 618 S.W.2d 372 [617 S.W.2d 372] (1981) (<HOLDING>). 347 Ark. at 347. In its Findings of Fact and
holding undisclosed statement that someone other than the defendant possessed the murder weapon three weeks after the murder was not material exculpatory evidence in light of this overwhelming evidence that buehl had the murder weapon at the time of the killings and that he was the murderer holding the death penalty proportionate where the nineteenyearold defendant failed to establish that he was immature at the time of the murder and the record established that he was the mastermind behind the murder holding that conspiracy to commit murder is not lesserincluded offense of firstdegree murder holding that it is irrelevant that sumlin who was in jail at the time of the murder did not pull the trigger if he aided solicited or encouraged his wife ruth sumlin in committing the murder holding that indictment for murder in the first degree charges murder by whatever means it may have been committed regardless of the theory of murder presented to the grand jury