smoked it, testified that appellant’s “crack” always made him “high” when he smoked it. Additionally, the substance at issue was bought and sold in countless transactions conducted over the course of a year. None of the experienced dealers or users who obtained the substance from appellant complained that it was not real crack. Likewise, none of the dealers who subsequently divided and sold the same substance received any such complaints from their customers. The jury could reasonably infer from this evidence that the substance these experienced drug dealers and users repeatedly purchased from appellant was indeed real crack. Also instructive is the fact that “a high price was paid in cash for the substance.” Hill, 8 Va.App. at 63, 379 S.E.2d at 136; see also Uwaeme, 975 F.2d at 1020 (<HOLDING>). Here, the evidence established that appellant
holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance holding that a reasonable jury could have concluded based on repeated references to the substance as cocaine and testimony from witnesses who had used the substances which they believed to be cocaine that substance was cocaine holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance recognizing that evidence regarding the high price the defendant had paid for the substance in question was relevant to show the substance was cocaine