COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Felton and Haley 

Argued by teleconference 

LAWRENCE JEROME FITZGERALD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 BY 

v. Record No. 1192-04-2 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 JULY 5, 2005 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Walter W. Stout, III, Judge 

 Gregory W. Franklin, Senior Appellate Defender (Office of the 

Public Defender, on briefs), for appellant. 

 Paul C. Galanides, Assistant Attorney General (Judith Williams 

Jagdmann, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

Lawrence J. Fitzgerald appeals his conviction of possession of heroin with intent to 

distribute, Code § 18.2-248. He maintains the evidence was insufficient to prove he intended to 

distribute the heroin. Finding the evidence was sufficient, we affirm. 

We view the evidence and the reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom in the 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 514, 578 

S.E.2d 781, 786, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 972 (2003). In doing so, we “examine the evidence that 

tends to support the conviction,” McCain v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 483, 492, 545 S.E.2d 541, 

547 (2001), and affirm if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt,” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 

The resident of an apartment permitted Detective Sandy Ledbetter and two United States 

marshals to search her apartment for a fugitive suspect. The defendant and another man were 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
- 2 - 

inside a bedroom playing Nintendo. The officers saw a crack pipe in plain view and a plastic 

bag containing an off-white rock substance partially concealed under the defendant’s leg. The 

plastic bag contained 10 individually wrapped sections of the rock substance with a combined 

weight of .666 grams of heroin. The officers also found in the room a glass pipe with cocaine 

residue, a lighter, and several empty baggies. 

Det. Ledbetter qualified as an expert in heroin distribution and packaging and explained 

how dealers prepare heroin for sale. They purchase “big chunk[s]” of heroin, spread it out, dilute 

it with a cutting agent, and then package it in smaller baggies. The long sheet of plastic had ten 

small, “wadded up” pieces of heroin knotted off, but still attached to the sheet. A dealer would 

burn the individual knots off the plastic sheet and sell the resulting separate packets for $10-15 

each. The sheet of plastic and separate packets were introduced as an exhibit. 

The detective opined that the quantity of drugs and manner of packaging were consistent 

with preparation for distribution and inconsistent with personal use. The quantity was more than 

three or four people would collectively consume in a day, and that quantity “would not be sold” 

the way it was packaged. The detective had never seen a user with “a large plastic bag with ten 

individual rocks individually wrapped up and twisted.” An individual who wanted to buy that 

quantity would purchase a single, large rock because it would be cheaper and purer. The 

detective illustrated the condition of the plastic sheet when seized and used that exhibit to 

explain her testimony. The laboratory had cut the individual packets of heroin from the larger 

sheet of plastic while conducting its tests. 

The trial court credited the expert’s testimony that the quantity possessed was 

inconsistent with personal use. It also found that the way the heroin 

is pieced together and the specific way that is done indicates to the 

Court that it is in the process of being prepared for sale, packaged, 

because it isn’t in the final form as you would see in [sic] on the 
- 3 - 

street with the baggies separated from the plastic as they would be 

for an individual sale. 

Circumstances probative of an intent to distribute “include the quantity of the drugs 

seized, the manner in which they are packaged, and the presence of . . . equipment related to drug 

distribution . . . .” McCain, 261 Va. at 493, 545 S.E.2d at 547. See also Askew v. 

Commonwealth, 40 Va. App. 104, 109, 578 S.E.2d 58, 60-61 (2003). In this case, the condition 

of the drugs when discovered in the defendant’s possession permitted a finding of intent to 

distribute. The individual packets were knotted off but still attached to the larger sheet of plastic. 

That was distinctive of the manner by which distributors prepare their product before distribution 

on the street. The drugs were seized while still in an intermediate stage of packaging that only 

occurs during preparation for later distribution. 

The trial court had the advantage of assessing the weight and value of the expert’s 

opinion while viewing the exhibit and the expert’s demonstration of its unique characteristics. 

“The fact finder, who has the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, has the sole 

responsibility to determine their credibility, the weight to be given their testimony, and the 

inferences to be drawn from proven facts.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 256 Va. 514, 518, 506 

S.E.2d 312, 314 (1998). Considering the quantity of the heroin and the manner of packaging 

when it was seized, the trial court was entitled to conclude that the only reasonable hypothesis 

flowing from the evidence was that the defendant intended to distribute it. See Eckhart v. 

Commonwealth, 222 Va. 447, 450-51, 281 S.E.2d 853, 855 (1981). Accordingly, we affirm. 

Affirmed.