guilt with respect to the charged murder. Indeed, in view of the finding instruction’s provision that the Commonwealth must prove that appellant either “acted as an accessory before the fact or conspired with ... Hulbert in the commission of the killing” (emphasis added), it is clear that proof of the referenced conspiracy is not the sole basis upon which appellant’s liability as an accomplice in the murder could rest. Proof that appellant participated in the murder as an accessory before the fact would also suffice to establish appellant’s guilt. Hence, we cannot say, viewing the applicable legal elements of murder in the abstract, that proof of the referenced conspiracy is “required” in this context to prove the charged murder. See Coleman, 261 Va. at 200, 539 S.E.2d at 734 (<HOLDING>); cf. Taylor, 11 Va.App. at 653, 400 S.E.2d at
holding proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose required to show equal protection violation holding that the only showing of intent required for a vcea claim is the intent to do the act involved holding that in the context of a bloekburger double jeopardy analysis proof of the specific intent to kill is not required in a malicious wounding case because code  18251  which requires proof that the accused had the intent to maim disfigure disable or mu  uses the disjunctive or in its description of the required intent for that offense holding no offense of attempted seconddegree murder where statute allows conviction without proof of intent to kill holding that proof of some or even all of the badges may not show intent