COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

CURTIS HARRIS 

v. Record No. 0396-94-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MAY 9, 1995 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA 

Donald M. Haddock, Judge 

 Richard C. Goemann, Senior Assistant Public Defender, 

 for appellant. 

 Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney General 

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

 for appellee. 

 Curtis Harris (appellant) appeals from a judgment of the 

Circuit Court of Alexandria (trial court) that approved his jury 

trial conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to 

distribute. The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether 

the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. Finding no 

error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 On appeal, when the issue is sufficiency, we view the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible 

therefrom. Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 

S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). 

 Suspecting on-going illegal drug activity in the area of 

 

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

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

Queen and North Fayette Streets in Alexandria, three members of 

the Alexandria Police Street Crimes Unit (unit) positioned 

themselves to observe and apprehend narcotics violators. Officer 

William George Bunney (Bunney), a member of the unit, was 

assigned the task of a "spotter." His duty was to watch the area 

for narcotics violations, using either his naked eyes or 

binoculars. Upon sighting a violation, the spotter, by radio, 

informs other unit officers standing by in police vehicles, who 

then make the arrest. The apprehending police officers are known 

as "jumpers." 

 Bunney had spotted in various areas of Alexandria and 

observed crack cocaine transactions more than 1000 times. On 

September 24, 1993, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Bunney was 

"spotting," using 20 x 80 binoculars. He observed appellant 

walking with four other men on North Fayette Street. The area 

was well-lit with street lights and lights from adjacent 

buildings. The four men entered the mouth of an alley and 

stopped. Through the binoculars, Bunney "could see the detail on 

a person's face, objects in their hands, their actions." At that 

time appellant was facing the street so that Bunney could observe 

the front of his body. A man in the group held out his right 

hand, which was then empty. Appellant placed a "small, white, 

rock-like object" in his hand, after which the group dispersed. 

 Appellant began to walk down the street and was met by 

another man about halfway down the block. Appellant poured 
- 3 - 

several "small, white, rock-like objects" into that man's empty 

hand, and, in return, appellant received a folded bill of 

currency. 

 The other man examined what appellant had placed in his hand 

and then left the scene. Bunney stopped watching appellant for 

two minutes or less while he tried to follow the man who had 

received the objects. He then radioed other members of the unit 

who were waiting in an unmarked police vehicle. Bunney requested 

those officers, Robin Nichols and Christopher Whelan, to arrest 

appellant. 

 Bunney gave Nichols the description and location of 

appellant. The officers drove to the area and found appellant 

who matched the description given. There was no other person in 

the area matching that description. Whelan described the events 

that followed: 

I stopped the vehicle right next to -- He was 

leaning up against a building, and I stopped 

my car in the street right across from where 

he was standing. I was the driver. I exited 

the vehicle, began to approach. I said, 

"You're under arrest," and at that time the 

person came off the wall he was leaning on 

and got in like a boxer's stance, and he was 

kind of bouncing around from foot to foot. 

He moved a few feet to like maybe the center 

of the sidewalk. It's a real wide sidewalk 

right there. 

 I stayed back, and Officer Nichols 

stayed back, because he was in this stance. 

I kind of moved off to his left side to get 

behind him, and at one point I saw an 

opportunity that I don't think he was looking 

at me, and I grabbed him from behind and 

tried to tackle him on the ground, and we 

bumped into a car that was parked there. 

 I got him on the ground right in the 
- 4 - 

area where there's a little sapling like the 

city puts up a tree, and there was a dirt 

area right there. We got him down to the 

ground, and we wrestled a little bit, and 

then got him handcuffed. Then I conducted a 

search of him. 

* * * * * * * 

I found one off-white, rock-like object in 

his left front pants pocket, and $80 cash in 

his right rear pocket. 

The off-white, rock-like object was taken to the lab, tested and 

proved to be rock cocaine, weighing .04 grams. 

 No drug paraphernalia associated with the consumption of 

rock cocaine or its distribution was found on appellant. 

Appellant presented no evidence on his behalf. 

 Contending that the Commonwealth's case is founded solely 

upon circumstantial evidence because of the small quantity of 

cocaine found in his possession, appellant asserts further that 

the evidence is equally susceptible to possession for personal 

use. He argues, therefore, that because all the circumstances 

are not consistent with his guilt, the evidence is insufficient 

to support the judgment approving the jury's verdict of 

possession with intent to distribute. We disagree. 

 The judgment of the trial court that approved the jury's 

verdict will not be overturned unless the record discloses that 

it was plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Traverso 

v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 172, 176, 366 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1988). 

 Here, the record shows that an experienced police officer who 

had personally observed drug sales more than 1000 times testified 
- 5 - 

that he observed appellant twice pass white, rock-like substances 

to other persons in the suspected drug transaction area. During 

one of these transactions, the recipient of the rock-like 

substance returned currency to appellant. When appellant was 

approached by the arresting officers, he resisted arrest, 

assuming a boxer's stance and shuffle. Cocaine was found in his 

possession along with $80 cash, all in twenty-dollar bills. 

There is no evidence that appellant used cocaine or that he 

possessed it for personal use. Nor was there in his possession 

any paraphernalia indicative of such use. 

 In Colbert v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 1, 4, 244 S.E.2d 748, 

749 (1978), the Virginia Supreme Court rejected an argument 

similar to that made by appellant and said, "nothing in the 

record suggests that the defendant personally used marijuana. 

Second, the quantity involved is not necessarily indicative of a 

lack of intent to distribute; indeed, the jury might well have 

inferred that the quantity seized was what remained from a larger 

supply held for distribution." From the circumstances shown 

here, the jury could have inferred that the cocaine seized was a 

remnant from a larger supply, although the quantity found in 

appellant's possession was small. 

 We hold that the evidence is sufficient to cause the issue 

to be presented to the jury, and that its verdict and the 

judgment of the trial court is supported by the record. 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 
- 6 - 

 Affirmed.