A defendant caught with methamphetamine precursors intended for sale is not guilty of possession with intent to manufacture. The court first held that the defendant could not be convicted of aiding and abetting the prospective buyer’s possession of methamphetamine with the intent to manufacture, because conviction of a crime on an aiding and abetting theory may not stand absent proof of a crime committed by a third party. The court next concluded that the defendant could not be directly convicted of possession with the intent to manufacture, because that offense requires an intent to personally manufacture methamphetamine. Because the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on aiding and abetting even though no evidence was presented regarding a crime by a third party, and because the court prevented the defense from arguing that aiding and abetting required such proof of a crime committed by a third party, the error was not harmless.