COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Senior Judge Cole 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

WILLIE LEE WILLIAMS, JR. 

v. Record No. 0749-94-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY JUDGE MARVIN F. COLE 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DECEMBER 5, 1995 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HALIFAX COUNTY 

William L. Wellons, Judge 

 Buddy A. Ward, Public Defender (Office of the 

Public Defender, on brief), for appellant. 

 Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General 

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

brief), for appellee. 

 Willie Lee Williams, Jr. was convicted of possession of 

heroin with the intent to distribute in violation of Code 

§ 18.2-248. On appeal, Williams contends that the evidence was 

insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed 

the heroin with the intent to distribute it. We disagree and 

affirm. 

 I.

 On January 7, 1993, Investigator Loftis, of the South Boston 

Police Department, stopped a car in which Williams was the sole 

occupant. Loftis issued Williams a traffic summons and impounded 

Williams' car because Williams' operator's license had expired 

and the car lacked a front license plate. 

 The police conducted an inventory search of the car. In the 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 2 

trunk of the car, Loftis found a glasses case inside of a shaving 

kit. The glasses case contained a clear plastic bag that 

contained twenty-eight small plastic bags filled with heroin. 

The total weight of the heroin was 4.66 grams. 

 Loftis, who was qualified as an expert witness in the 

preparation and distribution of drugs, testified that the amount 

of heroin and the method of its packaging was inconsistent with 

personal use. Loftis stated, "You just don't see that amount for 

personal use. Usually it's a very small amount." Loftis also 

testified the heroin would sell for $50 per packet in South 

Boston on January 7, 1993. 

 In his written statement, appellant denied any knowledge of 

drugs in the car. 

 II.

 "On appeal, we review 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). "In proving 

intent, various types of circumstantial evidence may be 

appropriate -- evidence concerning the quantity of drugs and cash 

possessed, the method of packaging, and whether appellant himself 

used drugs." Poindexter v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 730, 

734-35, 432 S.E.2d 527, 530 (1993). 

 Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the 

evidence in this case showed that Williams possessed twenty-eight 
 3 

individual packets of heroin totalling 4.66 grams. Loftis, who 

was qualified as an expert in the preparation and distribution of 

drugs, testified that this quantity of heroin was inconsistent 

with personal use, and that the method of packaging of the heroin 

was inconsistent with personal use. 

 Although Williams argues that he could have been a "heavy 

user" of heroin, no evidence introduced at trial indicated that 

Williams was a heroin user. In fact, Williams denied knowledge 

of the existence of the heroin in the car. Therefore, we cannot 

conclude, based on this evidence, that the evidence was 

insufficient to support the conviction for possessing the heroin 

with an intent to distribute it. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court 

is affirmed. 

 Affirmed. 
 4 

Benton, J., dissenting. 

 Based solely on the amount of cocaine and the method of 

packaging, the trial judge made a finding that Williams intended 

to distribute the cocaine. The principle is well established, 

however, that "possession of a small quantity [of a controlled 

substance] creates an inference that the drug was for the 

personal use of the defendant." Dukes v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 

119, 122, 313 S.E.2d 382, 383 (1984). The evidence does not 

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the twenty-eight individual 

packages of the substance was an amount inconsistent with 

personal use. 

 Over objection, the arresting officer testified as follows: 

 Q. Investigator Loftis, in the hundreds of 

cases that you have investigated, 

distribution cases, have you ever had -- 

discovered an individual or encountered an 

individual with this amount of drugs packaged 

as it was who is simply using as opposed to 

distributing? 

* * * * * * * 

 A. You just don't see that amount for 

personal use. Usually it's a very small 

amount. 

The officer's conclusion, based solely on his past encounters 

with persons who "[u]sually [have] a very small amount," does not 

prove Williams intended to distribute the substance. 

 Moreover, the evidence does not establish any unusual 

packaging. The substance was packaged in separate bags 

consistent with the manner in which one might purchase the 
 5 

substance. 

 The mode of packaging and the way the 

packages were hidden are as consistent with 

possession for personal use as they are with 

intent to distribute. It is just as 

plausible that the defendant purchased the 

packaged substance for personal use as it is 

that [the defendant] packaged the [substance] 

for distribution. 

Id. at 123, 313 S.E.2d at 384. 

 The evidence does not indicate that Williams had any unusual 

denominations of money or other paraphernalia suggesting an 

intent to distribute. The absence of such indications are 

consistent with the hypothesis that Williams possessed the 

substance for his personal use. See Wells v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. 

App. 549, 553, 347 S.E.2d 139, 140 (1986). 

 "The Commonwealth had the burden to prove by evidence beyond 

a reasonable doubt that [Williams] possessed the [substance] with 

intent to distribute." Dukes, 227 Va. at 123, 313 S.E.2d at 384. 

 "Suspicion of [intent to distribute] is not sufficient for a 

conviction." Wells, 2 Va. App. at 553, 347 S.E.2d at 141. I 

would hold that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that 

Williams intended to distribute the drugs.