Title: Clark v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 002605
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: September 14, 2001

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