PRESENT: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, and 

Kinser, JJ., and Compton, S.J. 

JACK ENIC CLARK OPINION BY 

SENIOR JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON 

v. Record No. 002605 September 14, 2001 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

 The sole question in this criminal appeal is whether the 

circuit court erred in denying a defendant's motion "requiring 

an independent medical examination of the complaining witness" 

in a statutory rape case. 

 Defendant Jack Enic Clark was indicted in September 1996 in 

the Circuit Court of Fairfax County for three felonies: 

Forcible sodomy (fellatio) with a child under the age of 13 

years, committed on February 2, 1996 and March 15, 1996, in 

violation of Code § 18.2-67.1(A); and statutory rape of the same 

child when she was 13 years of age, committed on April 5, 1996, 

in violation of Code § 18.2-63. 

 Upon defendant's not guilty pleas, a jury found him guilty 

of the February sodomy charge and of the statutory rape charge, 

the trial court having granted defendant's motion to strike the 

Commonwealth's evidence on the March sodomy charge. Later, the 

trial court sentenced defendant to confinement for eight years 
on the sodomy conviction and for eight years, with six 

suspended, on the statutory rape conviction. 

 Prior to trial, defendant moved the court to require the 

victim of the offenses to submit to an "independent medical 

examination" of her sexual anatomy. During a hearing on the 

motion, defendant argued that "[t]he Virginia Constitution . . . 

does give the Defendant his due process rights to present 

evidence in his own defense." Continuing, defendant mentioned 

"the uniqueness of a sexual assault case," and contended he had 

"due process rights . . . to have physical evidence that [he] 

may obtain through an independent physical examination to rebut 

any physical evidence that the Commonwealth would seek to 

introduce at the trial." 

 The trial court denied the motion, as well as a similar 

motion made post-trial. The judge determined that "it is beyond 

the authority of the court" to order the examination and that 

such action would be "highly intrusive" upon the victim. 

 Upon appeal of the convictions, a panel of the Court of 

Appeals of Virginia, in a November 1999 opinion, reversed the 

convictions. The court ruled that the trial court erred in 

deciding it lacked authority to order the examination, and 

remanded the cases for further proceedings. 

 Subsequently, the Court of Appeals granted a rehearing en 

banc. Upon rehearing, the judgment of the trial court was 

2
affirmed without opinion by an evenly divided court, and the 

opinion previously rendered by the panel was withdrawn. Clark 

v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 536, 535 S.E.2d 181 (2000). We 

awarded defendant an appeal from the Court of Appeals' judgment. 

 In this appeal, defendant argues "that the trial court's 

denial of the various motions for an independent medical 

examination was erroneous and seriously undermined Mr. Clark's 

ability to fully defend himself." Relying on cases from other 

jurisdictions, he contends that the due process rights of a 

Virginia defendant "should include the right to compel the 

physical examination" of the victim in a statutory rape case. 

 He says that in sexual assault cases, the victim's body 

"may be a significant reliable source of exculpatory or 

inculpatory evidence." Continuing, he argues that "[w]hen such 

evidence may be material, and likely exculpatory, a trial court, 

by way of a protective order delineating the appropriate 

protective conditions, must require the examination of the 

complainant by a properly qualified medical doctor." 

 The defendant, who testified he did not engage in sexual 

intercourse with the victim, asserts that the Commonwealth's 

case "boiled down" to the testimony of the victim "and the 

purported medical testimony" of a sexual assault nurse examiner. 

That witness was a registered nurse who examined the victim at 

the Fairfax Hospital 13 days after the rape and who qualified at 

3
trial as an expert "in the field of sexual assault examination." 

Her testimony supported the conclusion that the victim had 

engaged in sexual intercourse in the recent past before she 

conducted her examination. 

 Defendant contends that the nurse's "evaluation and 

conclusions were flawed and inconsistent." Hence, he argues, 

"the defense in this case has sufficiently challenged the 

credibility and quality of the prior examination by the 

Commonwealth's expert," and thus the trial court erroneously 

decided it lacked authority to order the examination. We 

disagree. 

 The defendant's motion to require the victim of the rape to 

submit to a physical examination (the sodomy charge, of course, 

is not implicated) simply is a discovery effort. However, in 

Virginia, no authority exists permitting such discovery, and we 

will not create such authority in this case. 

 There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a 

criminal case. Lowe v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 670, 679, 239 

S.E.2d 112, 118 (1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 930 (1978). 

Article 1, § 8 of the Constitution of Virginia provides that an 

accused in a criminal prosecution has the right "to call for 

evidence in his favor." We have said that this "unqualified 

right . . . includes the right to prepare for trial . . . and to 

4
ascertain the truth." Bobo v. Commonwealth, 187 Va. 774, 779, 

48 S.E.2d 213, 215 (1948). 

 However, the exercise of this right is not boundless. For 

example, in Bobo this Court held that the accused was entitled 

to a private interview, outside the presence of the prosecutor, 

of a witness who was in jail and who was summoned by both the 

prosecutor and the accused. Nevertheless, the Court said the 

decision did not apply to an interview of "a prosecuting witness 

such as the victim in a rape . . . case." Id. at 780, 48 S.E.2d 

at 216. 

 Furthermore, no statute or rule of court provides for a 

defense right to compel physical examinations of crime victims. 

Rule 3A:11 provides for only limited pretrial discovery by the 

accused in a felony case, and does not authorize the examination 

sought here, even though our Rule 4:10 permits a physical or 

mental examination of a party in a civil case. Indeed, Rule 

3A:11(b)(2) expressly prohibits "the discovery or inspection of 

statements made by Commonwealth witnesses or prospective 

Commonwealth witnesses to agents of the Commonwealth" and of 

certain specified "reports, memoranda or other internal 

Commonwealth documents made by agents in connection with the 

investigation or prosecution of the case." 

 Consequently, if an accused in Virginia has no right to 

interview a rape case victim, and no right to discover 

5
statements made by Commonwealth's witnesses to agents of the 

Commonwealth, and no right to discover certain internal 

Commonwealth documents, surely the accused should have no right 

to a physical examination of the victim in a statutory rape 

case. And we so hold. 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals will be 

Affirmed. 

6