Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Billips v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided June 6, 2006No. 0172053Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBenton, J.

I concur with the majority’s holding regarding the first two issues raised on appeal. I dissent, however, from the holding on the third issue because I believe that plethysmographs are as unreliable as polygraphs. I would hold that the trial judge erred by permitting plethysmograph results into evidence as a factor in assessing punishment upon Matthew Edward Billips. Therefore, I would reverse the sentences and remand for re-sentencing.

“Generally, when a specific objection is made to evidence or when inquiry is made by the trial judge concerning the purpose of evidence, the proponent of the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. United States v. SchefferSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  3. United States v. Grady William PowersCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1995
  4. O'Dell v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1988
  5. Spencer v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1989

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API