COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Decker, AtLee and Malveaux Argued at Richmond, Virginia

NICHOLAS SECRET, S/K/A NICHOLAS CHARLES SECRET MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0853-15-2 JUDGE RICHARD Y. ATLEE, JR. FEBRUARY 14, 2017 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUISA COUNTY Timothy K. Sanner, Judge Norman A. Thomas (Norman A. Thomas, PLLC, on briefs), for appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney Gene ral, on brief), for appellee.

A jury sitting in the Circu it Court of Louisa County convict ed appellant Nicholas Charles

Secret of one count of arson and nine counts of attempted first-degr ee murder. On appeal, Secret assigns four errors. Additionally, a panel of this Court directed the parties to brief a fifth issue concerning certain procedural irre gularities. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Secret’s

convictions.

I

. B ACKGROUND “On appeal of criminal convictions, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and draw all reasonable in ferences from those facts.” Payne v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 194, 198, 776 S.E.2d 442, 444 (2015). 1 So viewed, the evidence

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 The exception in this case is the manner in which we view the facts as they relate to Secret’s assignment of error rega rding the circuit court’s refusal of his proffered jury instruction.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - showed that in early September 2013, Secret began camping at the Acorn Community (“Acorn”) in Louisa County. A witness at trial describe d Acorn as an “intentional community” comprising “about thirty (30) people” who liv e and work together, sharing th e income derived from “cottage industries” such as a “heritage and organic seed business.” Acorn permitted non-members to stay on its property in various cap acities, including as “guests.” 2 The main building located on Acorn’s pr operty was a two-story structure called Heartwood. At Heartwood, there were bedrooms in which members and their guests slept, kitchen facilities for cooking, communal areas for eating and holding meetings, computers, and laundry facilities. Secret was a guest at Acorn by invitation of a member named Paxus Calta. Secret attended some meetings and meals at Heartwood. However, after Secret had been at Acorn through September, Calta notified him that , with the change in seasons, Acorn would not

be able to house him for the winter and that he needed to leave by Thanks giving. (Calta testified that, although Acorn permitted camping, “when it starts getting cold we want to make sure that everybody who is living with us is in a heated building.”) Calta also told Secret that some

members were concerned about hi s behavior and that he was ma king them “uncomfortable.”

Calta told Secret that if he did not address th ese behavioral concerns, he would have to leave earlier than Thanksgiving. S ecret appeared to respond approp riately to Calta’s directives.

See infra, Part II.D. In that instance alone, we view the facts in the light most favorable to Secret. See Payne, 65 Va. App. at 198, 776 S.E.2d at 444 (observing that in such instances, an appellate court “view[s] the facts relevant to the determination of that issue in the light most favorable to [the defendant]” (quoting Miller v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 527, 547, 769 S.E.2d 706, 716 (2015) (alterations in original))).

2 “Guest” is a term of art at Acorn, used as both a noun and a verb. One member of Acorn described the concept by observing that “[ p]eople who are guesting are people who have hosts in the community, and the amount of time that they stay is determined by the host or in some cases by the host and the community.”- 3 - On October 12, 2013, at 5:00 a.m., Calta wa s working in a downstairs office in

Heartwood when he smelled smoke. Other people were still as leep throughout the building. Seeing a fire burning in the kitchen area, Calta alerted the occupants of the building and called 911. Calta noticed fuel cans in the living r oom and fuel on floors out side of offices and

bedrooms in Heartwood. Some of Heartwood’s s econd-floor occupants we re trapped upstairs and forced to jump from the roof to escape the fire. Residents of Acor n, working together using buckets of water, succeeded in extinguishing th e fire before the fire department arrived. Although no one was killed or suffe red serious injury, some who escaped the blaze had bruises and scratches. Expert testimony attrial established that the star t of the fire was “inconsistent

with an accident.” After putting the fire out, the residents of Acorn conducted a head count. Secret was the only person known to be staying on Acorn propert y who was missing. Peter Lazear, a Special Agent with the Virginia State Police and a memb er of the “arson/bomb unit,” went to Acorn to investigate the cause of the fire and to gather evidence. Around 5:00 p.m ., Special Agent Lazear completed his work at Acorn and began driving back to Richmond to de posit the evidence he had gathered. Meanwhile, Secret, who by this time was a suspect in the arson as he was the only person unaccounted for following th e fire, returned to Acorn. Christopher Snyder, a deputy withthe Louisa County Sheriff’s Office, was dispatched to

Acorn after Secret’s return. Wh en Deputy Snyder arrived at Acorn, Secret was outside, sitting in a chair in the rain, with a se mi-circle of angry Acorn resi dents around him. Deputy Snyder

advised Secret that someone from the State Poli ce wanted to talk to him and was on the way. Thereafter, Deputy Snyder placed Secret in “i nvestigative dete ntion” and handcuffed him. Secret was cold and wet, and Deputy Snyder offere d him a cigarette and otherwise tried to make

him comfortable until the arrival of the State Police. While th is was going on, Louisa County- 4 - dispatch notified Delmas Roberts, Jr., a Special Agent with the Virginia State Police, who had been searching for Secret, that Secret was back at Acorn with Deputy Snyder. As Special Agent Roberts responded to Acorn, he called Special Agent Lazear. Special Agent Roberts testified: “I called Special Agent Lazear to let him know that Mr . Secret was back at the scene and that I was responding back.” Special Agent La zear testified that af ter hearing this, he “finished processing the evidence at [the] Richmond facility and then . . . started responding back to Louisa County.” Special Agent Lazear testified further: Agent Roberts contacted me again to ask if I would be interested in speaking to Mr. Secret, and, of course , I said, yes, and he asked if I would like to speak to him there at the scene at Acorn Community or if I would like to speak with him at the sheriff’s office. . . . My preference to Agent Roberts was that I would prefer to speak with him at the sheriff’s office if Mr. Secret was willing to go there of his own accord.[ 3 ] When Special Agent Roberts arrived at Acorn, he instructed Deputy Snyder to remove the handcuffs from Secret. Special Agent Robert s “asked [Secret] if it would be okay if we transported him to the sheriff's office, that he wasn’t under arre st, but the sheriff’s office would be a warm, dry place away from here, you know, wh ere we could talk and he agreed. He said that would be fine.” Deputy Snyder agreed to transport Secret, sin ce Deputy Snyder’s vehicle was equipped with a “cage.” However, Louisa County Sheriff’s Office departmental policy mandated that anyone transported by a deputy be handcuffed. Secret consented to being

3 Asked at trial why he prefe rred to speak with Secret at the sheriff’s office, Special Agent Lazear responded: At the Acorn Community it was an ugly day. It was very nasty, it was rainy, the temperature was dropping, and the sun was going down so it was getting dark, and then I also knew there were a lot of community members at the Ac orn Community and they all had exhibited a lot of emotions th roughout the day and I know they were anxious to speak with Mr. Secret as well, so I just felt like if we were able to speak at the sheriff’s office, it would be a more private environment for us to have a conversation.- 5 - handcuffed, and remained so restrained during the trip to the sheriff’s office, which took approximately fifteen minutes. Later, Special Agent Roberts called Speci al Agent Lazear again: I told him that I spoke with—I spoke with Mr. Secret and he acknowledged that it was okay to go —he gave consent to go to the sheriff’s office, so he was under the impression that we were going to transport him to the sheriff’s office, which was a closer destination from where he was coming, Special Agent Lazear. Upon arrival at the sheriff’s office, Deputy S nyder took Secret inside through the sally port, 4 past various cells, and ultimately into an interview room . After arrival at the sheriff’s office, Secret’s

handcuffs were removed. When Special Agent Lazear arrived at the sheriff’s office, he “had casual, social conversation with the few people that were there but nothing concerning Mr. Se cret or this case.” He then proceeded to the interview room and s poke with Secret for over an hour. Initially, he offered Secret no warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Explaining his decision not to do so, Special Agent Lazear testified: It was my understanding at that time that Mr. Secret was at the sheriff’s office of his own free will and accord, so I approached that conversation as exactly that, just a conversation with a witness that—the same as I had with many other people that day. I did not feel he was in custody, and I did not feel like he needed to be read his Miranda warnings at that time. (Underscoring added). Special Agent Lazear was the only person interviewing Secret, and did not threaten him or physically intimidate hi m. The door remained closed throughout the interview. For the first portion of the interview, lasting approximately forty minutes, Special Agent Lazear simply allowed Secret to speak, of fering Secret little direction. Special Agent

Lazear described this as “more of a casual conv ersation” which allowed Secret to speak “about his life and his understanding of th e world.” Special Agent Lazear explained that he was trying

4 A sally port is an area of a building c ontaining a secure entrance/exit that police typically use when transporti ng prisoners in their custody.- 6 - to “build a rapport” with Secret. Eventually, Special Agent Lazear asked Secret: “[W]hat about Acorn made you start the fire in the kitchen this morning?” Although Secret did not respond directly at that time, approximately twelve minut es later, Secret confes sed to starting the fire, saying, among other things: “I dumped a whole bunch of fuel in there, then threw a thing full of lit matches into some of the fuel.” Following this admission, Special Agent Lazear said: Well, Nick, what you’ve admitted to me is, it’s pretty serious and so the law says I have to read something to you before we talk any more about it, okay? So I’ve got a card here that I’m just going to read to you and go over with you and these are called your Miranda warnings. Special Agent Lazear then read Secret Miranda wa rnings. Secret indicated his familiarity with Miranda warnings and confirmed both that he understood the rights read to him and that he wished to waive those rights and continue to sp eak with Special Agent Lazear. Over the course of the next half-hour, Secret adm itted that he set the fire in th e kitchen at Acorn that morning, using matches and gasoline. He admitted placin g other flammable liquids inside of Heartwood. Secret responded affirmatively when Special Ag ent Lazear asked, referring to Acorn residents: “Did you know they were upstairs?” Other than Calta, Secret did not name any of the eighteen

victims listed in the indictments. Secret said that when he was setting the fire, he saw Calta “in the computer room” and walked behind him “trying to be ginger, . . . ‘cause I, I had a plan, like, to . . . dump fuel, dump fuel, dump fuel, light, but I didn’t re ally follow through on the last dumping of fuel, probably because [Calta] was in the computer room.” He admitted to fleeing after starting the fire. Throughout Special Ag ent Lazear’s questioning, Secret made bizarre statements, including that he believed the peopl e inside of Heartwood were “holograms” whom the fire would not harm and that these pe ople actually asked him to set the fire. 5

5 At trial, Secret raised neither his sanity at the time of the offens e nor his competency to stand trial.- 7 - Ultimately, the Commonwealth charged Secret with one count of arson of an occupied dwelling, a felony, in violation of Code § 18.2-77. The Commonwealth also charged Secret with eighteen counts of attempted first-degree murder “in the commission of arson,” each of which was a felony, in violation of Code §§ 18.2- 26 and 18.2-32. These eighteen charges all corresponded to people sleeping in H eartwood the night before the fire. Prior to trial, Secret moved to suppress his admissions to Special Agent Lazear, arguing that the process by which he was advised of his Miranda rights only after admitting to setting the fire violated his rights under the both the C onstitution of the United States and the Constitution of Virginia. The circuit cour t heard testimony, and reviewed th e audio and video recording of Secret’s statements to Special Agent Lazear. Th e circuit court ultimately made detailed findings of fact concerning the circumstances of Special Agent Lazear’s intervie w of Secret, and ruled

that all of Secret’s statements prior to the Miranda warnings were inadmissible. The circuit court also ruled, however, that all of Secret’s st atements after the Miranda warnings would be

admissible in Secret’s trial. At trial, at the conclusion of the Commonw ealth’s case-in-chief, the circuit court struck five of the attempted first-degree murder ch arges, leaving the arson charge and thirteen first-degree murder charges. Secret presented no evidence. He renewed his motion to strike the remaining charges, which the circuit court denied . Before closing arguments began, the parties discussed jury instructio ns with the circuit court. Secret proposed a jury instruction, labeled “Jury Instruction 18,” that addre ssed intent. The trial court refu sed the instruction, because it was “confusing” and because other instruc tions would convey the same information. The jury found Secret guilty of arson and guilt y of nine of the attempted first-degree murder charges. The jury acquitted him of four of the attempted first- degree murder charges. The jury sentenced Secret to five years in the penitentiary for arson, and to two years in the- 8 - penitentiary for each of the nine counts of attempted first-degree murder. The jury recommended a total sentence of twenty-three year s, a sentence the circuit court ultimately imposed. Secret noted his appeal to this Court.

II. A NALYSIS Secret assigns the following four errors:

1. The Trial Court Erred in Partially Denying Secret’s Motion to Suppress his October 12, 2013 Statement to Special Agent Lazear, because his Post-Miranda Warnings Statement was not Voluntary.

2. This Court should Revisit its Holding in Kuhne v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 79 (2012), and Either Extend or Modify it, or, Reverse its Adoption of the Legal Test of Justice Kennedy’s Concurrence in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), regarding Statements Resulting from Two-Step Police Interrogations.

3. The Trial Court Erred in Denying Secret’s Motions to Strike the Commonwealth’s Evidence regarding each Attempted Murder Charge, because the Commonwealth Failed to Prove Secret’s Sp ecific Intent to Kill the Individual Alleged Victims.

4. The Trial Court Erred in Refusing Secret’s Proffered Instruction 18 on the Intent Necessary to Prove an Attempted Crime. Additionally, a panel of this Cour t “direct[ed] the parties to br ief” an additional question: “Whether the transcripts relevant to appellant’s re quest for writ of certior ari and the trial court’s ruling that their omission was cler ical error should be deemed prope rly filed and made part of the

record.”

A. Procedural Issue As a threshold mater, we address the pro cedural question propounde d to the parties by a panel of this Court: may we deem Secret’s late-filed transcripts a part of the record, given that

the circuit court ruled that their omission was due to a “clerical er ror”? This question arises due- 9 - to certain irregularities that ar ose following Secret’s convictions. The circuit court’s June 20, 2015 sentencing order directed prepar ation of a record of the pro ceedings “including a transcript of the proceedings which will be initially char ged to the Commonwealth and will be assessable

as costs for the defendant should the appeal be denied.” The c ourt reporter filed two volumes of transcripts in the circuit court on August 18, 2015, a nd Secret thereafter filed a notice of filing of transcripts. 6 On November 4, 2015, Secret’s attorney re alized that the cour t reporter had filed incomplete transcripts which omitted significan t portions of the proceedings, including the circuit court’s rulings on pretrial motions, Secret’s motion to strike the Commonwealth’s evidence, certain rulings of the circuit c ourt concerning jury in structions, and the Commonwealth’s closing arguments to the jury. On November 6, 2015, Secret filed with this

Court motions to extend the dead line for filing his petition for appeal, and for certiorari to enlarge the record. By order on November 19, 2015, this Court ruled that “the time to file the petition for appeal herby [sic] is suspende d pending further order of this Court.” Pursuant to Rule 5A:8(a), “[t] he transcript of any proceeding is a part of the record when it is filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court within 60 days after entry of the final judgment.” Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii) also warns: “Whe n the appellant fails to ensure that the record contains transcripts or a written statement of facts necessary to permit resolution of appellate issues, any assignments of error affected by such omission shall not be co nsidered.” However, Code § 8.01-428(B) addresses cler ical mistakes, and states: Clerical mistakes in all judg ments or other parts of the record and errors therein arisi ng from oversight or from an inadvertent omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or upon the moti on of any party and after such notice, as the court may order. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, a nd thereafter while the a ppeal is pending such mistakes may be corrected with leave of the appellate court.

6 Secret had filed his notice of appeal on June 2, 2015.- 10 - On January 5, 2016, this Court entered an order fi nding that Secret’s appeal had “not yet been ‘docketed’ in this Court for the purpose of Code § 8.01-428(B) because the petition for appeal has not yet been filed” and remanded the matter to the circuit court “f or the limited purpose of determining whether the failure to file the rele vant transcripts constitu ted a clerical mistake subject to correction pu rsuant to [Code] § 8.01-428(B) and, if so, what action is appropriate.” At a hearing before the circuit court, Secret ’s attorney proffered th at the court reporter had mistakenly believed that “it wasn’t custom ary” to transcribe entire proceedings. The Commonwealth accepted the stipula tion as true, as did the circui t court, which found that the “misunderstanding, however it might arise, clearly c onstitutes a clerical mi stake in the [c]ourt’s view.” The circuit court ordered that the previ ously-omitted portions of the transcripts (which by

that time had been transcribed and filed with the circuit court) “be sent by the clerk to the Court of Appeals forthwith.” By order entered Janu ary 29, 2016, the circuit court memorialized these rulings, and the additional transcripts were sent to this Court. The Commonwealth endorsed the order “Seen and not objected to.” The Supreme Court addressed a similar situation in Belew v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. 173, 726 S.E.2d 257 (2012). The Court observed that Code § 8.01-428(B)’s use of “the term ‘clerical mistake’ . . . was sufficiently broad to encompass oversight or inadvertent omission by court reporters.” Id. at 178, 726 S.E.2d at 260 (citing Lamb v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 161, 164-65, 279 S.E.2d 389, 391-92 (1981)). The Court also confirmed that, “for the purposes of the statute, an appeal ‘is docketed inthe appellate court’ when the pe tition for appeal is received in the appellate court.” Id. (citing Lamb, 222 Va. at 165, 279 S.E.2d at 392).

We conduct de novo review of a trial court’s interpre tation of the Code and the Rules of the Supreme Court. Id. at 177, 726 S.E.2d at 259. Pursuant to Belew, we find that the omission of the full transcripts was the result of a cler ical mistake “arising from oversight or from an- 11 - inadvertent omission.” Code § 8.01-428(B). As such, the circuit court was empowered to

correct the error. As no petition for appeal had yet been filed inthis Court at the time the circuit court conducted its hearing to determine whether the transcripts had been omitted due to a “clerical mistake,” the circuit court retained ju risdiction to make its decision on that matter. Therefore, we deem all transcripts in this case properly filed and make them a part of the record. 7 B. The Interrogation In his first and second assignments of error, Secret argues that th e circuit court should have suppressed his entire statement to police. He urges this panel to modify existing binding precedent, but argues that even under existi ng precedent, the police unconstitutionally manipulated him into an unwarned confession. “In 1966, the United States Supreme Court . . . fashioned the now famous Miranda warnings that police must issue prior to inte rrogating suspects who are in custody.” Kuhne v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 79, 87, 733 S.E.2d 667, 671 ( 2012). Designed to “assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself,” these warnin gs must precede custodial interrogation, or the statements cannot be used against the suspect in a subsequent criminal proceeding. Id. (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 439). On occasion, a suspect who is in custody will provide incriminating statements without Miranda warnings and later provide further incriminating details after receiving Miranda warnings. The initial failure to warn may be due to oversight, confusion about whether a suspect is in custody, or a tactical choice by the police not to s upply Miranda warnings. Id. Such interrogations occur in two “steps.” In the first step, police interrogate an unwarned suspect while he is in custody, and the suspect make s an incriminating statement. In the second

7 Both Secret and the Commonwealth take this position in their briefs.- 12 - step, police advise the suspect of his Miranda rights, and the suspect makes additional incriminating statements. In both situations , because the suspect made unwarned admissions while subject to custodial interrogation, a c ourt will suppress the suspect’s pre-warning statements. The question then becomes how a cour t treats the suspect’s post-warning statements. In Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985), the Supreme Court held that “the admissibility of any subsequent statement should turn in thes e circumstances solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made.” Kuhne, 61 Va. App. at 88, 733 S.E.2d at 671 (quoting Elstad, 470 U.S. at 309). “ ʻ [A]bsent deliberately coercive or improper ta ctics in obtaining the initial statement,’ the Court concluded, ‘subsequent administration of Mi randa warnings . . . ordinarily should suffice to remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier statement.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Elstad, 470 U.S. at 314). In Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) , the Supreme Court confronted facts involving a police officer trained in the deliberate use of “two-ste p” interrogations. “Under this technique, police would first seek to elicit a conf ession without Miranda warnings. If successful, police would then issue Miranda warnings and guide the suspect through a repe tition of the

statement that was obtained without the benefit of Miranda warnings.” Kuhne, 61 Va. App. at 88, 733 S.E.2d at 671. A plurality of four justices in Seibert promulgated a multi-factor test for assessing the effect of such deliberate tactics. Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment, but wrote separately, offering his own prescrip tion for dealing with deliberate two-step interrogations. Acknowledgi ng the danger of “the infrequent ca se . . . in which the two-step interrogation techniqu e was used in a calculated way to unde rmine the Miranda warning,” Justice Kennedy insisted that “[t]he ad missibility of postwarning statements should continue to be governed by the principles of Elstad unless the deliberate two-step strategy was employed .” Seibert, 542 U.S. at 622 (emphasis added).- 13 - The United States Supreme Court has instru cted lower courts interpreting plurality decisions of the Supreme Court that “the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowe st grounds.” Kuhne, 61 Va. App. at 91, 733 S.E.2d at 672-73 (quoting Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977)). Kuhne therefore adopted Justice Kennedy’s concurrence. Secret argues that this Court should exte nd, modify, or reverse Kuhne’s adoption of Justice Kennedy’s reasoning. However, the interp anel accord doctrine pr events this panel’s

reconsideration of Kuhne. “Under that doctrine, a decision from a panel of this Court ‘cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court.’” Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 398, 419, 768 S.E.2d 709, 720 (2015) (quoting Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed, 40 Va. A pp. 69, 73, 577 S.E.2d 538, 540 (2003)). Further, we are constrained by our previo us decisions and those of the Supreme Court. See Commonwealth v. Burns, 240 Va. 171, 173-74, 395 S.E.2d 456, 457 (1990) (a panel decision of this Court is established precedent and binding under rules of stare decisis upon subsequent panels); Moor e v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 83, 85, 414 S.E.2d 859, 860 (1992) (panels of the Court of Appeals are bound by Supreme Court precedent). Bostic v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 632, 635-36, 525 S.E.2d 67, 68 (2000). Thus, we are bound by the holding in Kuhne. Secret argues that, even unde r Justice Kennedy’s test, adoptedin Kuhne, the circuit court should have suppressed his post-warning statement. On appeal, the burden rests with appellant to show that the denial of his suppression motion constitute d reversible error. Harris v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 689, 695, 668 S.E.2d 141, 145 (2008). The reviewing court is bound by the trial court’s findings of historical fact unless plainly wr ong or without evidence to support them, and “must give deference to the inferences that may be drawn from those factual findi ngs.” Commonwealth v. Hilliard, 270 Va. 42, 49-50, 613 S.E.2d 579, 584 (2005).- 14 - Kuhne, 61 Va. App. at 86, 733 S.E.2d at 670. The dete rmination of whether the officer’s actions were deliberate is a factual finding by the trial court that this Court wi ll not disturb on appeal unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence. The circuit court made specific factual findings. It found the testimony of Deputy Snyder, Special Agent Roberts, and Special Agen t Lazear credible. The circuit court correctly identified the key inquiry as “whether Special Agent Lazear purposefully utilized a two-step interrogation techniqu e as proscribed by Seibert.” The ci rcuit court concluded that Special Agent Lazear had not deliberate ly conducted a two-step interr ogation, because “Special Agent Lazear believed that [Secret] had agreed to co me voluntarily to speak with him at the Louisa County Sheriff’s Office.” The circuit court also found that Special Agent Lazear “had not been trained in, nor was he familiar with, the two-step interrogation technique.” These factual findings are not plainly wrong, and are supported by the evidence. Secret argues that Special Agent Lazear’s decision not to offer Miranda warnings at the outset of the interrogation came about only by Special Agent Lazear’s “willful ignorance” and that Special Agent Lazear’s unfamiliarity with two-step interrogation does not ch ange the fact that he did, objectively, interrogate Secret in that manner. We disagree with Secret’s assertion, and decline to disturb the circuit court’s factual finding th at Special Agent Lazear did not deliberately employ a two-step in terrogation technique. Following that finding, the circuit court anal yzed Secret’s interrogation pursuant to Elstad. Under that case, “the admissibility of any subsequent statement . . . [turns] solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made.” Elstad, 470 U.S. at 309. “Voluntariness is a question of law, subject to indepe ndent appellate review,” but “[s]ubsidiary factual questions . . . are entitled to a presumpti on of correctness.” Avent v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 175, 195, 688 S.E.2d 244, 255 (2010) (quoting Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 250 Va. 262, 268-69, 462 S.E.2d- 15 - 112, 116 (1995)). A trial court’s determination th at a waiver of Mira nda rights “was made knowingly and intelligently is a quest ion of fact that will not be set aside on appeal unless plainly wrong.” Angel v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 248, 258, 704 S.E.2d 386, 392 (2011).

The circuit court watched and listened to the recording of Agent Lazear’s interrogation of

Secret. The circuit court then made lengthy findings to support its ruling: Again, the [c]ourt considers the totality of the circumstances in which the statements were made. Initially, the [c]ourt finds that the circumstances under which the interview took place exhibit no element of coercion whatsoever. By the time the interview had begun, [Secret] had been provided with water and with a blanket to make him feel more comfortable. . . . No threats, be they explicit or implicit, were ever made to [Secret] . . . throughout the course of the interview, nor was there any moment when Special Agent Lazear sought to exploit the previously given unwarranted [sic] statement. . . . Special Agent Lazear . . . seemed to have a remarkably good understanding of [Secret]’s cosmetic [sic] theories. Having listened to those theories, as well, while they may be somewhat bizarre, they also ha ve a certain rationality of them which Special Agent Lazear s eemed to understand and this understanding seemed to be a ppreciated by [Secret]. . . . Immediately before administeri ng the Miranda warnings, Special Agent Lazear advised [Secret] he had just admitted something to him that was pretty serious and that because of that he was required to give [Secret] his Miranda warnings. From this [Secret] could have concluded, perhaps, it might be best for him not to say anything further; however, [Secret] indicated he was familiar with the Miranda warnings, that he understood those rights, and when asked if he wanted to waive them and talk to Special Agent Lazear, he said, quote, sure, end quote. (Underscoring added). In light of these findings , the circuit court ruled “that the statements made by [Secret] following the administration of Miranda rights we re not the product of coercion, were knowingly and volunt arily made, and, thus, the motion to suppress any statements following the administration of the Miranda warnings is denied.” (Underscoring added). Elstad held that in situations such as Secret’s, wher e police give Miranda warnings in the middle of a custodial interrogation, such warnings “ordinaril y should suffice to remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier statement.” El stad, 470 U.S. at 314. We find this to be just- 16 - such an ordinary situation, and agree with the circuit court that the second half of Secret’s statement need not have been suppressed. Although Secret argues at leng th about his allegedly “altere d mental state,” the circuit court found that during the interview, when Special Agent Lazear asked Secret if he was intoxicated, Secret “denied bei ng under the influence of either drugs or alcohol, and having observed his appearance and demean or during the course of the in terview, the [c]ourt finds no evidence of impairment.” There was no factual finding that Secret was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. 8 The trial court’s findings that Secret k nowingly and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent was not plainly wr ong. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in de nying Secret’s motion to suppress his post-warning statements.

C. Intent to Kill

Secret asserts that the circu it court erred by denying his motions to strike each attempted murder charge because the Commonwealth failed to prove the specific intent to kill each individual victim. “When considering on app eal the sufficiency of the evidence presented below, we ‘presume the judgment of the trial c ourt to be correct’ and re verse only if the trial court’s decision is ‘plainly wrong or without ev idence to support it.’” Kelly v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 250, 257, 584 S.E.2d 444, 447 (2003) ( en banc ) (quoting Davis v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 96, 99, 570 S.E.2d 875, 876-77 (2002)). “O n appeal, we will consider the evidence in the light most favorable to th e Commonwealth, as it prevailed in the trial court.” Whitehurst v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. App. 132, 133, 754 S.E.2d 910, 910 (2014).

8 Secret asserts that “[t]he record established that Secret had ingested [a] hallucinogen,” then points this Court to the presentence investiga tion report. We do not agree that the presentence investigation report (dated over six months after the suppression hearing and over three months after the trial) which happens to in clude Secret’s self-servi ng statements about his drug use at the time of his crimes , “established” any such fact.- 17 - “‘To sustain a conviction for attempted mu rder, the evidence must establish both a specific intent to kill the victim and an overt but ineffectual act committed in furtherance of the criminal purpose.’ An overt act must go be yond mere preparation to commit the crime.” Bottoms v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 378, 382, 470 S.E.2d 153, 155 (1996) (quoting Wynn v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 283, 292, 362 S.E.2d 193, 198 (1987)). “Intent is the purpose formed in a person’s mind which may, and of ten must, be inferred from the facts and circumstances in a particular case.” Ridley v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 834, 836, 252 S.E.2d 313, 314 (1979). Among the circumstances from wh ich intent may be inferred are “a person’s

conduct and statements.” Robertson v. Co mmonwealth, 31 Va. App. 814, 820, 525 S.E.2d 640, 643 (2000). A jury “may infer that a person in tends the immediate, direct, and necessary consequences of his voluntary acts.” Moody v. Commonwealt h, 28 Va. App. 702, 706-07, 508 S.E.2d 354, 356 (1998); see also Jury Instr. 10. Importantly, when a jury ascertains a defendant’s intent, it makes a factual determinati on which is “accorded gr eat deference on appeal

and will not be reversed unle ss clearly erroneous.” Towler v. Commonwealth, 59 Va. App. 284, 297, 718 S.E.2d 463, 470 (2011). Secret admitted to Special Agent Lazear that he started the fire but now claims that, to support the attempted murder char ges, the Commonwealth was requi red to prove he intended to kill the specific individual named in each indi ctment. Here, he claims, there was no evidence that he knew that those particular people were in the building when he set the fire. According to Secret, “each alleged victim had to be identified by Secret as an intended target of the purported direct, ineffectual act toward th e commission of his or her first- degree murder.” We do not agree

with Secret’s formulation of the law of inte nt. He cites, among other cases, Thacker v. Commonwealth, 134 Va. 767, 114 S.E. 504 (1922), and Hargrave v. Commonwealth, 214 Va.- 18 - 436, 201 S.E.2d 597 (1974), arguing that the evidence mu st show the specific intent to kill the

named victim. In Thacker, the Supreme Court observed: To do an act with intent to commit one crime cannot be an attempt to commit another crime though it might result in such other crime. To set fire to a house and burn a hu man being who is in it, but not to the offender’s knowledge, would be murder, though the intent was to burn the house only; but to a ttempt to set fire to the house under such circumstances would be an attempt to commit arson only and not an attempt to murd er. A man actuated by general malevolence may commit murd er though there is no actual intention to kill; to be guilty of an attempt to murder there must be a specific intent to kill. Thacker, 134 Va. at 770-71, 114 S.E. at 506 (quoti ng William L. Clark, Jr. & William E. Mikell, Handbook of Criminal Law 148 (3d ed. 1915)). He re, Secret was aware that Heartwood was filled with people. The circuit court observed that there was evidence from which the jury could find that [Secret] knew that they were in there and that by burning up the house and sett ing the fire in the way he did, spreading diesel all over creation, that he was basically making it so they would catch on fire and there would be no escape for the people that lived above the fire. The circuit court also pointed to the manner in which the defendant had set the fire and the fact that he had done so in the middle of the night when many people would be asleep as evidence from which the jury could infer hi s requisite specific intent. Lastly, the circuit court pointed to the evidence of “some difficulty [that Secret] had with the group” and “some dissatisfaction which came across in his statement to Special Agen t Lazear . . . that evidenced frustration and an attempt to eliminate what he referred to as the holograms.” The circuit court stated that it was a reasonable inference that, by this reference, Se cret meant “the people within Acorn and the people within Heartwood on the night in question . . . . He was e ssentially eliminating the people who reside there.” So, the jury “could infe r that the immediate, direct, and necessary- 19 - consequence of [Secret starting the fire] . . . w ould be that the people w ithin the dwelling would

have been consumed within the fire . . . .” The record supports all of these conclusions. It is unnecessary for Secret to announce his intent to kill each individual victim. A jury may infer this. Secret argues that the evidence did not show that Secret knew anyone other than Ca lta was in Heartwood when he set the fire. A jury may infer such knowledge as well. Secr et poured fuel around a building in the early morning hours when people were still sleeping. The evidence showed Secret wanted to eliminate the “holograms,” i.e. , the people he knew were in the bu ilding at the time he started the fire. Further, he purposefully poured gas outside of bedrooms, offices, a nd the main living area throughout the first floor, making evacuation difficult. Together, this evidence supports the finding that Secret had the specific intent to kill t hose present in the building. The Commonwealth was not required to prove Se cret intended to kill specific victims by name. The Commonwealth needed only show he in tended to kill the people he knew were in the building, whether he knew their iden tities or not, at the time he set it on fire. The record shows

that the trial court’s de nial of Secret’s motion to strike on the issue of intent was not plainly wrong. Accordingly, the trial court did not err.

D. Proffered Instruction 18 Finally, Secret claims that the circuit court e rred by refusing his proffered jury instruction on the “intent necessary to prove an attempted crim e.” (Capitalization altered). The circuit court refused Jury Instruction 18, which stated: “To do an act with in tent to commit one crime cannot be an attempt to commit another crime, though it might result in such other crime.” This instruction was a quotation from Thacker. S ee Thacker, 134 Va. at 770-71, 114 S.E. at 506.

We review a trial court’s deci sion to refuse a jury instruct ion for abuse of discretion. King v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 580, 586, 770 S.E.2d 214, 217 (2015) ( en banc ).- 20 - However, we review de novo “whether a jury instruction accura tely states the relevant law.” Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187, 228, 738 S.E.2d 847, 870 (2013) (quoting Orthopedic & Sports Physical Therapy Assocs., Inc. v. Summit Grp. Props., LLC, 283 Va. 777, 782, 724 S.E.2d 718, 721 (2012)). In reviewing jury instructions, our “sole res ponsibility . . . is to see that the law has been clearly stated a nd that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.” King, 64 Va. App. at 586-87, 770 S. E.2d at 217-18 (quoting Molina v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 666, 671, 636 S.E.2d 470, 473 (2006)). “When considering whether a trial court abused its discretion by denying a defendant’s proffered in struction, ‘we vi ew the facts relevant to the determination of that issue in the light most favorable to [the de fendant].’” Holloman v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 147, 174, 775 S.E.2d 434, 448 (2015) (alterati on in original) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cary, 271 Va. 87, 91, 623 S.E.2d 906, 907 (2006)). Finally, parties are not entitled to redundant instructions covering principles of law alre ady addressed in other instructions. King, 64 Va. App. at 587- 88, 770 S.E.2d at 217 (citing Remington v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 333, 349, 551 S.E.2d 620, 631 (2001)); see also Ambrose v. Commonwealth, 129 Va. 763, 766, 106 S.E. 348, 349 (1921) (“It is not desirable to multiply

instructions and is not error to refuse even a corr ect instruction on a poi nt upon which the jury has already been fully and corre ctly instructed.”). We find that Secret’s proffered Jury

Instruction 18 was both c onfusing and duplicative. Secret claims Jury Instruction 18 was necessary to instruct the jury that it could not infer the specific intent to kill, in support of the attempted murder charges, solely based on the intent to commit arson. The proffered instruction does not clearly state this proposition. As the circuit court found, the instruction was “misleading” beca use it suggested that a person could not hold- 21 - two intents at the same time. 9 Furthermore, the circuit court gr anted other instructions that, when read together, serve the same purpose as Secret ’s proffered instructi on. See Jury Inst. 10 (instructing that jury “may infer that every pers on intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts”); Jury Instr. 13 (instructing, in part, that “[t]he intent requir ed to be proved in an attempted crime is the specific intent in the person’s mind to commit the particular crime for which the attempt is charged”); Jury Instr. 14 (ins tructing, in part, that “[t] he direct act required to be proved in an attempted crime is an act which shows a present intention to commit the crime”); Jury Instr. 19 (instructi ng that as one of the elements required to convict Secret of attempted first-degree murder, the Commonwealth must show that Secret “intended to commit the First-degree Murder of the alleged victim ”). The instructions clearly stated the Commonwealth’s burden to prove the specific intent to kill each victim. Further, the evidence proved Secret’s specific intent to kill each victim. See supra, Part II.C. The law was clearly stated, and the instructions cove red all issues raised by the case . Accordingly, the circuit court did not err by refusing Jury Instruction 18.

III. C ONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we affirm Secret’s convictions.

Affirmed.

9 The circuit court observed: “[T]he problem is sometimes they’re simultaneous intents. I mean, that’s—that’s the problem. It just seems to rule out that inference.” Later, the circuit court stated: I don’t know what the jury would do with this proposed instruction because I think it’s vague and argua bly misleading. It really does seem to the [c]ourt’s way of thinking that it simply seems to imply that there could only be one inte nt with respect to a set of circumstances and that, therefore, is kind of like, well, pick one, it’s one or the other.