dissenting.
“[WJhen an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478 (1966). Accordingly, “the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” Id. at 444. Absent other effective means, those procedural safeguards must entail the giving of customary warnings concerning the defendant’s rights. Id.
“[T]he well considered conclusions of Miranda with reference to warnings to be given to a person held in custody” are applicable to individuals confined to a state prison. Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 4 (1968). Although “[prisoners do not have greater Fifth Amendment rights than other persons,” Beamon v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 707, 710, 284 S.E.2d 591, 592 (1981), “noth*18ing in . . . Miranda . . . calls for a curtailment of the warnings to be given persons under interrogation by officers” solely because during the conduct of the interrogation the person is a prisoner. Mathis, 391 U.S. at 4-5.
While it is true “that Miranda does not affect ‘[gjeneral on-the-scene-questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in the fact-finding process,’ ” Beamon, 222 Va. at 710, 284 S.E.2d at 593 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 477) (emphasis added), the questioning of Blain was clearly not a “general-on-the-scene questioning.” The Beamon holding is inapplicable to the facts of this case precisely because unlike Beamon and Cervantes v. Walker, 589 F.2d 424 (9th Cir. 1978), upon which the majority also relies, Blain was not questioned at the scene. Also unlike Cervantes, the detention of Blain and the search of his cell were not actions taken in the course of a general, routine administrative search. Rather, the prison authorities had specific “information that . . . Blain was involved in a robbery murder of inmate White,” which occurred in White’s cell, and went to search Blain’s cell for “evidence to connect him to the murder.” No other cells on the tier on which Blain’s cell is located were searched.
The majority opinion concludes that no additional restraint was placed on Blain’s freedom of movement, and thus, Blain was not in custody. The uncontradicted evidence establishes that during the early morning hours while prisoners were asleep and locked in their cells, Blain was awakened by two uniformed correctional officers and two institutional investigators. Blain was removed from his cell, required to stand on the tier outside his cell with a uniformed correctional officer on either side of him, and, according to Blain and Investigator Brown, handcuffed. Investigators Terry and Brown both testified that Blain was essentially immobilized by the guards at his side and was not free to walk away from the spot where he was restrained. The evidence simply does not support the majority opinion’s conclusion that the officers did not place additional restrictions on Blain’s freedom of movement.
Even under the “test” that the majority opinion adopts from the fourth and ninth federal circuits, Blain was in custody for purposes of Miranda. Under any view of the evidence, there was a “change in [Blain’s] surroundings” from the relative security and freedom of movement in his cell to immobilization between two *19officers “which result [ed] in an added imposition on his freedom of movement.” Cervantes, 589 F.2d at 428. Blain was “subjected to more than the usual restraint on a prisoner’s liberty to depart” and, therefore according to the “test” adopted by the majority opinion, Blain was in custody for purposes of Miranda. United States v. Conley, 779 F.2d 970, 973 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Cervantes, 589 F.2d at 428. The facts of this case clearly establish that even the relatively limited freedom of movement that is afforded prisoners was denied to Blain while his cell was being searched.
The record also clearly establishes that Blain was questioned by the officers before he was given Miranda warnings. Investigator Brown’s notes taken at the time of the incident unequivocally state that Blain was questioned. To the extent that the trial judge’s ruling may be interpreted, as it was by the majority, to be a finding that Blain was not questioned, it is plainly wrong. I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority’s assertion that the trial judge found ás a fact that Blain was not questioned. The trial judge’s conclusion “that it was indeed a voluntary response” does not answer whether Blain was questioned. The record contains no finding that Blain was not questioned. In any event, “the term ‘interrogation’ under Miranda refers not only to express questioning.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980). The investigator used “words [and] actions . . . that [he] should [have known were] reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response” and, thus, committed the “functional equivalent” of interrogation. Id. Because the investigator failed to give Miranda warnings to Blain prior to the interrogation, the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the statements.
The trial judge also erred in limiting the examination of Lieutenant Maddox of the Virginia Department of Corrections. The Commonwealth’s case-in-chief was based largely on the testimony of an inmate, Robert Stockman. Stockman, who previously had been convicted of eight felonies, lived in the cell adjacent to the cell of the murdered inmate. Stockman testified that he and Blain “[w]ent in and took jewelry and [belongings]” and beat the victim. Stockman said that he received only the victim’s cigarettes and canteen tickets for his participation and that Blain took the victim’s jewelry. Upon cross examination, Stockman conceded that he beat the victim with his fist, choked the victim, jumped on *20the victim’s chest with his feet, and then left the victim unconscious on the floor. Stockman further testified that he and Blain returned later and dragged the victim from underneath the bed before killing him. Although Stockman acknowledged handling a knife with which the victim was stabbed, he testified that Blain actually stabbed and killed the victim.
Blain’s defense was that Stockman beat the victim and took the jewelry from him; that Stockman then sold Blain the jewelry after the victim would not re-purchase his stolen jewelry; and that Stockman together with James Hollingsworth murdered the victim. Blain’s evidence established that he and Stockman “did not pal around together” in the penitentiary; that Hollingsworth, who also lived in the cell adjacent to the victim, was Stockman’s friend; that Hollingsworth had served time with Stockman in several penal institutions and had escaped from a penal institution with Stockman in 1982; that a freshly washed shirt and pair of trousers were found in Hollingsworth’s cell after the stabbing; and that a pair of tennis shoes were found in Hollingsworth’s cell consistent with the medical examiner’s testimony that the victim apparently had been stomped on the head with a tennis shoe.
The defense then sought to introduce evidence concerning Stockman’s reputation. The defense proffered that the testimony of Lieutenant Maddox would establish that he had investigated complaints against Stockman in another penal institution in 1982 and that Stockman was known as an individual who would steal other prisoners’ jewelry and then “strong-arm” them into buying back their own property. The trial judge ruled that Maddox would only be permitted to testify about Stockman’s general reputation for truthfulness and for violence, but not concerning his reputation for a specific pattern of criminal activity.
The refusal to allow evidence of the reputation of the witness to commit the specific type of crime charged to Blain was error.
If the testimony . . . was relevant to establish defendant’s claim, and violated no specific rule of admissibility, it should not have been stricken. If pertinent to the factual issue or issues involved, and if, when considered in connection with other evidence, it helped to establish the defense or claim relied upon by defendant, or if it added force and strength to *21other evidence bearing upon the issue or issues presented, then defendant was entitled to have it considered by the jury.
* * * *
It is said that all facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule forbids. However, the weight or probative value is not the criterion or test. If it tends even slightly to prove a fact relevant to any issue in the case and material or forceful in the determination thereof, it is admissible. The criterion of relevancy is whether or not the evidence tends to cast any light upon the subject of the inquiry. There are instances where the circumstances are such that the act in question, while perhaps somewhat remote, is not sufficiently irrelevant to render it inadmissible as. a matter of law, and it may have such probative value and legal relevancy that the inferences which may be drawn therefrom are clearly proper for the jury.
McNeir v. Greer-Hale Chinchilla Ranch, 194 Va. 623, 628-29, 74 S.E.2d 165, 168-69 (1953)(citation omitted).
In Barnes v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 24, 197 S.E.2d 189 (1973), the Supreme Court held that evidence of the victim’s character and reputation for specific acts is relevant when pertinent to the defense. Id. at 26, 197 S.E.2d at 190-91; see also Winfield v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 211, 220, 301 S.E.2d 15, 20 (1983)(“evidence tending to show ... a distinctive pattern of past sexual conduct, involving the extortion of money by threat after acts of prostitution, of which [the] alleged conduct in this case was but an example, is relevant, probative, and admissible in . . . defense”). Testimony concerning Stockman’s reputation for the specific act of jewelry theft and “strong-arm” intimidation of his victims was probative of Blain’s defense and tended to inculpate the Commonwealth’s main witness as the criminal agent. It was error to deprive the jury of that evidence. McNeir, 194 Va. at 631, 74 S.E.2d at 170; Karnes v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 758, 765-66, 99 S.E. 562, 565 (1919).
For these reasons I would reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.