COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

NORRIS S. HARRIS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0912-95-1 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 JUNE 11, 1996 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SUFFOLK 

Rodham T. Delk, Jr., Judge 

 Timothy E. Miller, Public Defender (Office of 

the Public Defender, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General 

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

brief), for appellee. 

 On appeal from his convictions of possession of cocaine with 

the intent to distribute and of resisting arrest, Norris S. 

Harris contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his 

convictions for possession of cocaine with the intent to 

distribute. We find no error and affirm the judgments of the 

trial court. 

 "On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences 

fairly deducible therefrom." Maynard v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. 

App. 437, 439, 399 S.E.2d 635, 637 (1990) (en banc). The 

judgment of a trial court sitting without a jury will not be set 

aside unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

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

(1987). Harris contends that the evidence was insufficient to 

support his conviction for the January offense, because it failed 

 to prove that he was aware of the presence of cocaine in the 

car. He admits that his proximity to the cocaine is relevant, 

but contends that it is insufficient to prove constructive 

possession. 

 As to his February offense, Harris argues that the only 

evidence linking him to the cocaine is the testimony of Officer 

Brooks and Officer Cunningham. He contends that because the 

officers neither saw the cocaine in his hand nor saw him place it 

between the car seats, the evidence is insufficient to support 

his conviction for possession. 

 With regard to both offenses, Harris contends that even if 

the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions for 

possession, it is insufficient to prove that he intended to 

distribute the cocaine. He argues that Officer Jackson's 

testimony that the amounts were inconsistent with personal use 

and the absence of any smoking device are insufficient to prove 

intent to distribute. We disagree. 

 To establish the charge of possession of cocaine with intent 

to distribute, the Commonwealth was required to prove that Harris 

"'intentionally and consciously possessed' the drug, either 

actually or constructively, with knowledge of its nature and 

character, together with the intent to distribute it." Wilkins 
- 3 - 

v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 293, 298, 443 S.E.2d 440, 444 (1994) 

(en banc) (citation omitted). To establish constructive 

possession, "the Commonwealth must point to evidence of acts, 

statements, or conduct of the accused or other facts or 

circumstances which tend to show that the defendant was aware of 

both the presence and character of the substance and that it was 

subject to his dominion and control." Powers v. Commonwealth, 

227 Va. 474, 476, 316 S.E.2d 739, 740 (1984). "[P]ossession of a 

quantity [of controlled substance] greater than that ordinarily 

possessed for one's personal use may be sufficient to establish 

an intent to distribute." Glenn v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 

150, 154, 390 S.E.2d 505, 508 (1990). 

 We find the evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that, on both occasions, Harris constructively possessed 

cocaine. When he was stopped by the police on January 7, 1994, 

cocaine was in plain view on the floorboard of the car and he 

attempted to hide it. This sufficiently proved that he had 

knowledge of the cocaine's character and presence and that he 

asserted dominion and control over it. On February 14, he again 

attempted to hide the cocaine when the car in which he was riding 

was stopped by the police. 

 Officer Jackson's testimony was sufficient to prove that 

Harris possessed the cocaine with the intent to distribute it. 

 The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. 

 Affirmed.