The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
Clifford v. Commonwealth (ORDER)
061936 Clifford v. Commonwealth (ORDER) 06/08/2007 In a sex crimes case, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court should have granted a defense motion to permit cross-examination of the victim…
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.
061936 Clifford v. Commonwealth (ORDER) 06/08/2007 In a sex crimes case, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial cour…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- June 8, 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.
061936 Clifford v. Commonwealth (ORDER) 06/08/2007 In a sex crimes case, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court should have granted a defense motion to permit cross-examination of the victim regarding a prior alleged false accusation of sexual molestation she had made against another. The defendant abandoned his argument supporting such cross examination by failing to assert it on appeal and also failed to object to the specific basis of the trial court's denial of his motion; thus, the theory presented in the argument which formed the basis of the Court of Appeals' ruling was not properly before that Court. The Court of Appeals' judgment is reversed and the case remanded…
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
061936 Clifford v. Commonwealth (ORDER) 06/08/2007 In a sex crimes case, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court should have granted a defense motion to permit cross-examination of the victim regarding a prior alleged false accusation of sexual molestation she had made against another. The defendant abandoned his argument supporting such cross examination by failing to assert it on appeal and also failed to object to the specific basis of the trial court's denial of his motion; thus, the theory presented in the argument which formed the basis of the Court of Appeals' ruling was not properly before that Court. The Court of Appeals' judgment is reversed and the case remanded…
Outcome words in this text: 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
