in a continuing “general scheme” of drug procurement and distribution of which this shipment of heroin was a part. “Evidence of what the defendant did as a part of a plan or scheme of which the [drugs] he possessed was a part is the best available evidence of what he intended to do with the [drugs]” on this occasion. Rodriguez, 249 Va. at 206, 454 S.E.2d at 727. Accepting appellant’s account that his involvement in the scheme was limited to providing transportation from the bus terminal to Roanoke in exchange for a small quantity of drugs, such evidence was relevant to prove that appellant knew of the nature and presence of heroin and that he would receive a quantity of it in exchange for his assistance. See Moore v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 277, 288, 487 S.E.2d 864, 869 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Such evidence proved a common scheme whereby
holding evidence insufficient to establish defendant had physical or constructive possession of heroin when no drugs were found on his person and the only drugs discovered on the premises which he shared with the codefendant were secreted out of plain view holding similar evidence sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of possession with intent to distribute cocaine holding evidence sufficient to prove possession of heroin with intent to distribute where defendant secreted heroin for another knowing of others intent to sell the heroin holding in part that defendant charged with unlawful possession of heroin marihuana and narcotics implements was eligible for a conditional discharge holding that evidence that the utilities at a residence where heroin was sold were listed in defendants name that an army identification card bearing the defendants name and other papers belonging to the defendant were located in the same bedroom where heroin was found and that a sixteenyear old obtained heroin from the house and sold it at defendants direction was sufficient to have the jury consider whether the defendant possessed the heroin under a theory of constructive possession