COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Willis and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

GILBERTO EADLEY HANSELL 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1986-96-1 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 JUNE 24, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS 

Robert W. Curran, Judge 

 Jeffrey C. Rountree for appellant. 

 Monica S. McElyea, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 On appeal from his conviction of possession of marijuana 

with intent to distribute, Gilberto Eadley Hansell contends that 

the Commonwealth failed to prove his intent to distribute. We 

find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 On July 26, 1995, the Newport News police officers executed 

a search warrant at the home of Hansell and his wife, a two-story 

apartment with several bedrooms located upstairs. In the first 

bedroom, the officers found eleven zip-lock bags of marijuana, 

weighing a total of 0.54 ounce, in a bowl on top of a dresser. 

Hansell admitted that he slept in this bedroom when his 

stepdaughter was away. At the time of the search, his 

stepdaughter had been visiting her father for approximately two 

weeks. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 In the second bedroom, the officers discovered fourteen 

tied, plastic bag corners of marijuana, weighing a total of 1.89 

ounces, in a duffel bag. They also discovered a zip-lock bag of 

marijuana weighing 0.01 ounce in a stereo speaker. Several 

dissimilar, empty zip-lock bags were found in the kitchen. 

 On appeal, we review the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

granting to it all reasonable inferences 

fairly deducible therefrom. 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 v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 

(1987) (citing Code § 8.01-680). 

 Proof of "specific intent" is essential to a conviction for 

possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. 

Servis v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 507, 524, 371 S.E.2d 156, 165 

(1988). "Where . . . the Commonwealth's evidence of intent to 

distribute is wholly circumstantial, 'all necessary circumstances 

proved must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with 

innocence and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.'" 

Wells v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 549, 551, 347 S.E.2d 139, 140 

(1986). 

 Hansell does not argue that the evidence is insufficient to 

prove that he possessed marijuana. He contends that the evidence 

is insufficient to prove his intent to distribute. 

 Possession of a small quantity of drugs, when considered 
- 3 - 

with other circumstances, may be sufficient to establish an 

intent to distribute. Dutton v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 762, 765, 

263 S.E.2d 52, 54 (1980). "Indeed, quantity, when greater than 

the supply ordinarily possessed by a [marijuana] user for his 

personal use, is a circumstance which, standing alone, may be 

sufficient to support a finding of intent to distribute." Hunter 

v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 569, 570, 193 S.E.2d 779, 780 (1973). 

See Josephs v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 87, 102, 390 S.E.2d 491, 

499 (1990) (en banc). Other circumstances may also be 

considered, including the method used to package the controlled 

substance. Monroe v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 154, 156, 355 

S.E.2d 336, 337 (1987). 

 Twenty-six bags of marijuana were seized. While Hansell and 

his wife admitted using marijuana, Officer LaCroy testified that, 

based upon his experience, the amount and packaging of the 

marijuana was inconsistent with personal use.1 See Davis v. 

Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 728, 731-32, 406 S.E.2d 922, 923 

(1991). 

 Additionally, "[t]he factfinder need not believe the 

accused's explanation and may infer that he is trying to conceal 

 

 1Officer LaCroy testified that users of marijuana purchase 

typically one or two "dime bags" of marijuana at a time, three 

being the most. He also explained that: "If you're going to buy 

a [large] quantity then it would be more economical to buy large 

amounts in large bags and not make the [dealer] . . . break it 

down and place it into small tiny bags, zip them up or tie them 

off into knots. There's a lot more work than just putting it 

into one big bag." 
- 4 - 

his guilt". Black v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 838, 842, 284 S.E.2d 

608, 610 (1981). See also Estes v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 520, 

524, 382 S.E.2d 491, 493 (1989) ("The credibility of the 

witnesses is within the exclusive province of the finder of fact 

. . . ."). Eleven bags of marijuana were lying in plain view in 

a vacant bedroom used by Hansell. Yet, Hansell, a marijuana 

user, testified that he had no knowledge of the presence of the 

marijuana in his residence, or how the twenty-six bags of 

marijuana ended up in his house. The trial court, sitting 

without a jury, heard the evidence. It observed the witnesses' 

demeanor, appearance and manner of testifying. It was entitled 

to infer that Hansell lied to conceal his guilt. 

 The evidence sufficiently supported the trial court's 

finding that Hansell intended to distribute the marijuana. 

Considered together, the method of packaging and the quantity of 

marijuana found proved an intent to distribute. Hansell's lack 

of credibility provided an additional ground upon which the trier 

of fact could infer his guilt. The judgment of the trial court 

is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.