Charged in an indictment with possession of heroin and in a warrant with possession of drug paraphernalia, the defendant, Richard Allen Murray, was tried by a jury and convicted of both offenses. In accordance with the jury’s verdicts, the defendant was sentenced to serve three years in the penitentiary on the heroin charge and twelve months in jail on the paraphernalia charge.
The record shows that the defendant and a companion, Julia Phillips, were arrested on August 24, 1981, in Prince William *15County. The arresting officer found a multicolored bag in the bed of the pickjip truck operated by the defendant. Inside the bag, the officer located a green purse, and in the purse he discovered a quantity of heroin and a hypodermic syringe and needle. The defendant admitted ownership of the heroin but made no statement concerning the syringe and needle.
This appeal concerns only the paraphernalia conviction and presents the single question whether the trial court erred in granting Instruction No. 5, which reads in pertinent part:
You shall consider as evidence that the defendant possessed the hypodermic syringe and needle under circumstances which reasonably indicated an intention to use the same for purposes of illegally administering any controlled drug the close proximity of the hypodermic syringe and needle to any controlled drug.
The defendant contends that Instruction No. 5 impermissibly assumed the ultimate fact in issue, viz., that he possessed the syringe and needle. The language of the instruction, the defendant maintains, “dictated a mandatory conclusion as to the issue of who possessed the drug paraphernalia” and ignored the proposition that his companion, Julia Phillips, “could have possessed the . . . paraphernalia.”
We disagree with the defendant. We do not believe that the instruction is subject to the criticism he levels against it.
The defendant’s drug paraphernalia conviction was obtained under Code § 54-524.109:!.1 The gravamen of the offense *16created by this statute is the possession of controlled paraphernalia under circumstances which reasonably indicate an intention to use the paraphernalia for the purpose of illegally administering controlled drugs. The Code section provides that the close proximity of drug paraphernalia to controlled drugs is a circumstance to be considered in determining whether possession in a particular case is for the illegal purpose specified in the statute.
Instruction No. 5 merely explicated this circumstance for the jury. The instruction neither told the jurors that the defendant possessed the drug paraphernalia in question nor informed them that his alleged possession was for the illegal purpose proscribed by the statute.
It is true that Instruction No. 5 is inartfully drawn and requires a close reading to divine its real meaning. In Instruction No. 6,2 12 however, the trial court told the jury in unequivocal terms that the burden was upon the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasona*17ble doubt, first, that the defendant did possess the hypodermic syringe and needle and, second, that he possessed the paraphernalia for the illegal purpose of administering controlled drugs. Any confusion created by the inartful wording of Instruction No. 5 would have been dissipated by the clear language of Instruction No. 6, thus rendering harmless any error resulting from the drafting of the disputed instruction. Wallen v. Commonwealth, 134 Va. 773, 785, 114 S.E. 786, 790 (1922); Sims v. Commonwealth, 134 Va. 736, 754, 115 S.E. 382, 388 (1922).
It is also true that, by the use of the words “shall consider,” Instruction No. 5 seemingly imposed a mandatory duty upon the jury to give consideration to the “close proximity” feature listed in the statute. But the statute itself speaks in mandatory terms, stating that evidence of circumstances tending to show an intention to use controlled paraphernalia illegally “shall include [the] close proximity of any such controlled paraphernalia to . . . any controlled drug . . . .” (emphasis added). Hence, it was not error to tell the jury that it should consider the “close proximity” feature of the evidence, especially since it was undisputed that the drug paraphernalia and the controlled drugs were in the same purse.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.