With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The language of Code § 18.2-32 is plain and unambiguous. First-degree murder by lying in wait is an enumerated type of murder, listed disjunctively from those killings that are willful, deliberate, and premeditated. Murder by lying in wait does not require proof of premeditation. Premeditated murder is a separate class of first-degree murder. Therefore, evidence of voluntary intoxication as a defense to premeditation is irrelevant to a charge of murder by lying in wait because the Commonwealth was not required to prove premeditation. Because the intoxication evidence was irrelevant to the elements of the charge, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that such evidence should be excluded. See Claytor v. Commonwealth, 62 Va.App. 644, 655-56, 751 S.E.2d 686, 691 (2013) (<HOLDING>); Morgan v. Commonwealth, 50 Va.App. 120, 131,

A: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing defendant to present evidence of his subjective belief regarding his status as habitual offender because his belief was irrelevant to offense of driving as habitual offender
B: holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony
C: holding that it is permissible for a trial court to consider the same prior offenses for both enhancement of the instant offense and to establish habitual offender status
D: holding that defendants habitual traffic violator conviction could also serve as a predicate felony conviction under the general habitual offender statute
A.