COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Bray 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

JEANETTE LEE KENOWITZ 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1455-96-1 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

 APRIL 15, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK 

Luther C. Edmonds, Judge 

 (Eugene W. Shannon, on brief), for appellant. 

 Appellant submitting on brief. 

 H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Jeanette Lee Kenowitz (appellant) appeals her bench trial 

convictions by the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk (trial 

court) for possession of heroin with intent to distribute in 

violation of Code § 18.2-248, possession of a firearm while in 

possession of heroin with intent to distribute in violation of 

Code § 18.2-308.4(B), and conspiracy to distribute heroin in 

violation of Code § 18.2-256. Finding no error, we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court. 

 Upon familiar principles, we view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the Commonwealth granting to it all reasonable 

inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 

Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). Viewed 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 

accordingly, the record reveals that appellant lived in a house 

in Norfolk with Diane Cook (Cook). Pursuant to a tip from a 

confidential informant that drugs were being sold from the house, 

Investigator Derrick Young (Young) put the house under 

surveillance on December 8, 1995 and observed highly suspicious 

activity. On December 14, 1995, Young purchased cocaine from 

appellant at the house. 

 The following day Young returned to the house. Appellant 

answered the door. Cook1

 was in the house when Young entered. 

Appellant introduced Young to Cook who had answered the door on 

Young's previous visit. Appellant told Young that "they didn't 

have any of her cocaine to sell but they were selling Mrs. Cook's 

cocaine." Cook displayed the cocaine, and Young again made a 

purchase and left the premises. 

 Approximately one hour later, Young returned with a search 

warrant. He and other police officers found cocaine on a dresser 

in appellant's bedroom along with currency. In a rear bedroom, 

the officers found more currency, a box of .45 caliber 

ammunition, and $347 in food stamps. The officers also found a 

gun in Cook's possession. When asked about the gun, Cook said 

that she and appellant alternated personal possession of the gun 

on a regular basis and that each had held the gun on December 15. 

 On December 15, 1995, pursuant to her arrest, the police 

 1At trial, Diane Cook testified on behalf of the 

Commonwealth. 
- 3 - 

searched appellant at the police station. Investigator Marion 

Pederson found a glassine envelope containing two smaller 

envelopes of heroin inside appellant's bra. The heroin weighed 

.03 grams. The record discloses evidence that 1 gram of heroin 

had an approximate street value of $50 to $100. Appellant said 

the heroin was for personal use. No heroin was found anywhere 

else in the house or on any other person. 

 When asked what she knew about the sale of heroin from the 

residence, Cook said that appellant told her "[s]he had bought it 

from someone named Eric . . . ." Cook was asked to "[d]escribe 

how often cocaine and/or heroin was sold from the residence." 

She responded by saying that "it was available . . . around the 

clock." Cook added that both heroin and cocaine were kept in 

appellant's bedroom, that appellant would go into her bedroom and 

get the drugs for customers, and that appellant would even accept 

food stamps in trade for cocaine and heroin. 

 Appellant told Young that the gun had been given to her by a 

man after a recent robbery attempt at her house and that she and 

Cook used it for protection. 

I. Heroin 

 "The judgment of a trial court sitting without a jury is 

entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will not be set 

aside unless it appears from the evidence that the judgment is 

plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Martin, 4 Va. 

App. at 443, 358 S.E.2d at 418 (citing Code § 8.01-680). 
- 4 - 

 The judgment of the trial court convicting appellant for 

possession of heroin with intent to distribute is supported by 

the record. Appellant admitted to Young that she had sold both 

cocaine and heroin from her home. Cook verified that both 

cocaine and heroin were used and sold at appellant's home every 

day and described how appellant handled the sales. Furthermore, 

both appellant and Cook knew which drug their customers used and 

based on the tastes of the people at the house on December 15, 

Cook knew appellant had sold heroin that day. The record 

supports the trial court's decision. Accordingly, we affirm 

appellant's conviction for possession of heroin with intent to 

distribute. 

II. Firearm 

 While on December 15, 1995, the weapon was found on Cook's 

person, the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that 

appellant constructively possessed the gun on that date. See

Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 77, 414 S.E.2d 860 (1992) 

(constructive possession of either firearm or drug sufficient to 

sustain conviction). The Commonwealth presented evidence of 

acts, statements, or conduct of the accused and other facts or 

circumstances which showed that appellant was aware of both the 

presence and character of the narcotics and that the gun was 

subject to her dominion and control. See id. at 80, 414 S.E.2d 

at 862. Cook expressly stated that both she and appellant 

handled the gun on December 15. We find that the evidence 
- 5 - 

sufficiently proves that appellant was aware of both the presence 

and character of the narcotics and that the narcotics and the gun 

were subject to her dominion and control. Therefore, we affirm 

the firearm conviction. 

III. Conspiracy 

 "A conspiracy is 'an agreement between two or more persons 

by some concerted action to commit an offense.'" Bowman v. 

Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 259, 265, 397 S.E.2d 886, 889 (1990) 

(quoting Cartwright v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 368, 372, 288 S.E.2d 

491, 493 (1982)). "Proof of an explicit agreement . . . is not 

required; the agreement may be proved by circumstantial 

evidence." Brown v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 73, 77, 390 S.E.2d 

 386, 388 (1990). Appellant admitted that both cocaine and 

heroin were sold from her home. Cook testified to an "ongoing 

operation" of the sale of "cocaine and/or heroin." The operation 

continued "around the clock." Cook detailed how the purchaser 

would enter and ask if any drugs were available: "[W]e [meaning 

the defendant and Cook] asked them how much they wanted. And 

whoever, depending on whoever had it, we would give it to them 

and they would give us the money." The record clearly discloses 

that there was an agreement between Cook and appellant to 

distribute heroin and that, in fact, the conspiracy was carried 

out. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court 

is affirmed. 
- 6 - 

 Affirmed.