The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
Billips v. Commonwealth
062180 Billips v. Commonwealth 11/02/2007 (Revised 11/05/2007) Admissibility of opinion evidence based upon plethysmograph testing at a sentencing proceeding requires the same threshold finding of reliability …
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
062180 Billips v. Commonwealth 11/02/2007 (Revised 11/05/2007) Admissibility of opinion evidence based upon plethysmograph testin…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- November 2, 2007
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
062180 Billips v. Commonwealth 11/02/2007 (Revised 11/05/2007) Admissibility of opinion evidence based upon plethysmograph testing at a sentencing proceeding requires the same threshold finding of reliability of the scientific method as applies to the use of scientific evidence in judicial proceedings generally. The burden of making a prima facie showing of that foundation rests upon the proponent of the evidence, subject to the opponent's opportunity for cross-examination and refutation. Here, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing that burden, requiring the defendant to introduce evidence of unreliability of this technique. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for resentenci…
Open court document ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
1 entry, oldest first.
· Supreme Court of Virginia
ReversedRemanded
The court's record, as written
062180 Billips v. Commonwealth 11/02/2007 (Revised 11/05/2007) Admissibility of opinion evidence based upon plethysmograph testing at a sentencing proceeding requires the same threshold finding of reliability of the scientific method as applies to the use of scientific evidence in judicial proceedings generally. The burden of making a prima facie showing of that foundation rests upon the proponent of the evidence, subject to the opponent's opportunity for cross-examination and refutation. Here, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing that burden, requiring the defendant to introduce evidence of unreliability of this technique. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for resentenci…
Outcome words in this text: reversing, reversed, remanded.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
