COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Bumgardner 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

WILLIAM MARSHALL WARD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1164-97-3 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

 MAY 19, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG 

Richard S. Miller, Judge 

 Clinton R. Shaw, Jr., for appellant. 

 Ruth Ann Morken, Assistant Attorney General 

(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief) 

for appellee. 

 William Marshall Ward (defendant) was convicted in a bench 

trial for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, a 

violation of Code § 18.2-248.1. On appeal, defendant complains 

that the evidence was insufficient to prove the requisite intent 

to distribute. We disagree and affirm the conviction. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record and this 

memorandum opinion recites only those facts necessary to 

disposition of the appeal. 

 When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on 

appeal, we view the record in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, granting it all reasonable inferences fairly 

deducible therefrom, and the decision will not be disturbed 

unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. 

Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

537 (1975). 

 While executing a search warrant at defendant's residence, 

Lynchburg police seized a pager, $97 in cash, and a "plastic 

baggie" containing 26.52 grams (.935 ounces) of marijuana from 

his bedroom. The packaged marijuana was discovered resting 

inside an opened box containing similar plastic "sandwich bags." 

 Defendant admitted ownership of the marijuana, stating to police 

that his girlfriend, Brenda Banks, with whom he shared the 

residence, "wasn't dealing drugs," "[t]hat it wasn't hers." At 

trial, Banks denied knowledge of the marijuana and testified 

that, although defendant "say [sic] he smokes," she had "never 

seen him smoke." Defendant testified that the marijuana was for 

his use only, but police discovered no paraphernalia consistent 

with personal consumption. 

 Qualified as an expert in the "sale and distribution of 

marijuana in the City of Lynchburg," Investigator H.W. Duff 

testified that the quantity of marijuana seized had a "street 

value" of approximately $530, if divided for distribution into 

the customary "dime bag" lots. He also noted that "drug dealers" 

often purchase in "large quantity" to "get a better deal." Huff 

further testified that plastic sandwich bags are commonplace in 

the "drug trade . . . to package narcotics to be sold on the 

street" and that a "drug dealer will use a pager to be contacted 

at any time." 

 Defendant argues correctly that "[t]he quantity of the 
- 3 - 

controlled substance [possessed] is one factor to be considered" 

in determining the intended use by an accused. Davis v. 

Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 728, 733, 406 S.E.2d 922, 925 (1991) 

(citations omitted). However, "[a] small quantity of drugs, 

along with other circumstances, may support a conviction of 

possession with intent to distribute." Id. "Such other 

circumstances include the presence of paraphernalia used in 

packaging," id., and "the absence of any [evidence] suggestive of 

personal use" by an accused. Glasco v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 

763, 775, 497 S.E.2d 150, 156 (1998) (citations omitted). 

 Here, although defendant and two defense witnesses refuted 

certain circumstantial evidence of defendant's intent to 

distribute, it was within the province of the trial court to 

assess credibility and disbelieve all or portions of such 

testimony. See Servis v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 507, 525, 371 

S.E.2d 156, 165 (1988). Thus, when viewed without regard to 

defendant's evidence, the Commonwealth established that defendant 

possessed a bulk quantity of marijuana, consistent with a 

purchase by a drug dealer for resale at substantial profit, 

together with paraphernalia to facilitate distribution, but not 

personal consumption, of the drug. Defendant's statement to 

police further suggested that defendant possessed the marijuana 

for purposes of "dealing." Such evidence provided sufficient 

support for the instant conviction. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the decision. 
- 4 - 

 Affirmed.