HB687Introduced in the House of Delegates
Criminal Procedure - Evidence - Protecting Artists' Creative Expression (PACE Act)
Introduced by Marlon Amprey, District 40
What does this bill do?
Plain-English breakdown
Writing a plain-English summary of this bill… this can take a few seconds the first time.
Official description
Providing that the creative expression of a criminal defendant or juvenile respondent is not admissible against the defendant or respondent unless the court makes certain findings, subject to a certain exception; and providing that the Act does not preclude the admission of creative expression in juvenile cases for the purposes of evaluating, recommending, or ordering referral to mental health services or diversion programs.
Where it stands
Rereferred to Judicial Proceedings
April 9, 2026
How did lawmakers vote?
House of DelegatesStage: Third Reading Passed · April 7, 2026
100
Yes
36
No
5
Absent or Not Voting
141 delegates recorded in this House of Delegates vote. Colors show vote categories only, not whether a vote was good or bad.
See how each delegate voted
| Delegate | District | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Jason Buckel | 1 | No |
| Terry Baker | 1 | No |
| Jim Hinebaugh | 1 | No |
| William Wivell | 2 | No |
| William Valentine | 2 | No |
| Matthew Schindler | 2 | Yes |
| Ken Kerr | 3 | Yes |
| Kris Fair | 3 | Yes |
| Karen Simpson | 3 | Yes |
| Barrie Ciliberti | 4 | No |
Bill history
First Reading Judiciary
Hearing 2/17 at 1:00 p.m.
Favorable with Amendments Report by Judiciary
Favorable with Amendments {933027/1 Adopted
Second Reading Passed with Amendments
Third Reading Passed (100-36)
Referred Rules
Rereferred to Judicial Proceedings
Verify the information
Our commitment to neutrality
We provide factual information only. We never tell you which politicians or bills to support, and we do not rank, score, or endorse anyone.