Background
Clinton Woodward, then 37, was dating Tasha Little and lived in her home. In March 2023, Little’s 16-year-old daughter, E.H., disclosed to a school employee that she had engaged in sexual activity with Woodward. Following investigation by the Department of Community Based Services, E.H. gave two forensic interviews at a Children’s Advocacy Center and underwent a medical examination by Macy Clevidence, an advanced practice registered nurse practitioner certified in family medicine. Clevidence found medical evidence of healed trauma to E.H.’s hymen and anus consistent with the reported sexual contact.
Woodward was charged with First-Degree Sexual Abuse, Third-Degree Rape, and Third-Degree Sodomy. At trial, E.H. testified that Woodward engaged in oral, vaginal, and anal intercourse with her on multiple occasions. Woodward’s defense emphasized inconsistencies in E.H.’s initial statements, noting she had initially denied penetration before later disclosing the full extent of sexual contact. Woodward objected to Clevidence’s testimony, claiming the Commonwealth had failed to properly disclose her as an expert witness and that her testimony improperly bolstered E.H.’s credibility.
The jury found Woodward guilty on all three counts and recommended a three-year sentence. Woodward appealed, challenging the admission of Clevidence’s testimony, the bolstering of E.H.’s credibility, and the trial court’s administration of an Allen charge to the jury.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. On the expert witness disclosure issue, the court held that Kentucky Criminal Procedure Rule 7.24(1) requires a defendant to make a written request for expert witness information. Woodward made no such request. Although the Commonwealth was under a court order to disclose examination results, it complied by providing Clevidence’s medical report and notes clearly identifying her as an APRN and FNP-C with findings of abnormal physical trauma. Woodward thus had adequate notice of Clevidence’s identity, qualifications, and the nature of her testimony well in advance of trial, permitting him to prepare for cross-examination—which he did thoroughly. The court found no discovery violation and no palpable error.
Regarding Clevidence’s qualifications, the court declined to speculate on a Daubert challenge that was never requested at trial. Under Kentucky precedent, the failure to conduct a sua sponte Daubert hearing is not palpable error. Moreover, Woodward himself treated Clevidence as an expert during cross-examination by asking questions requiring specialized medical knowledge, thereby inviting any error. The court noted that any lack of specialized training affects the weight of evidence, not its competency.
On the bolstering claim, the court held that Clevidence’s testimony—that her medical findings were consistent with the reported history of sexual abuse—was proper expert testimony designed to assist the jury in understanding medical evidence of abuse. This directly aligned with binding Kentucky precedent permitting such testimony. Any statements Clevidence made regarding E.H.’s truthfulness came at Woodward’s own initiative during cross-examination, constituting invited error. The trial court did not err in admitting testimony from E.H.’s mother, Tasha Little, who testified that medical findings of trauma to E.H.’s anus and vagina were consistent with prior disclosures E.H. had made to Little before the medical examination.
Key Takeaways
- Expert witness identification must be requested in writing under Kentucky Criminal Procedure Rule 7.24(1); failure to request, combined with actual notice of expert identity and qualifications through discovery compliance, does not constitute reversible error.
- Medical expert testimony that physical findings are consistent with a victim’s reported history of sexual abuse is proper and assists the jury; it does not constitute improper “bolstering” of the victim’s credibility.
- A defendant who fails to object to expert testimony, conducts cross-examination treating the witness as an expert, and elicits testimony on cross-examination cannot later claim palpable error based on invited error.
- An Allen charge (jury instruction on reaching unanimous verdict) may be waived through verbal affirmation, even without a formal objection.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the scope of expert witness disclosure obligations in Kentucky criminal procedure and the limits of appellate challenge to trial court evidentiary rulings. By holding that a written request is required for expert witness information—rather than automatic disclosure—the court places the burden on defendants to actively seek such information. Crucially, the opinion reinforces that medical expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases remains admissible when it explains physical findings in relation to the victim’s reported history. The decision also illustrates how a defendant’s own trial strategy choices—particularly aggressive cross-examination treating someone as an expert—can preclude later appellate challenges based on invited error doctrine.
For practitioners, the case underscores the importance of making timely written discovery requests, filing pretrial Daubert challenges when expert qualifications are disputed, and preserving objections to evidence at trial. It also reaffirms that in sexual abuse prosecutions involving medical evidence, expert testimony explaining the relationship between physical findings and reported abuse remains a critical and admissible tool for prosecutors.