Coroner’s Duties both Judicial and Ministerial.
By the common law his powers and duties are both judicial and ministerial. In his ministerial capacity he is merely a substitute for the sheriff, as when the sheriff is a party.[511] His powers and duties thereunder it is not the present purpose to state and define. His judicial authority relates to inquiries into cases of sudden death, by a jury of inquest, super visum corporis, or, as it is more commonly defined, an inquisition, with the assistance of a jury, over the body of any person who may have come to a sudden or violent death, or who may have died in prison.[512] It is not necessary that the death should be both violent and sudden, and that both these circumstances must concur to give the coroner jurisdiction. It is sufficient to give the coroner jurisdiction if the death occurs from any violence done to a person by another, although such violence may not have terminated the life of a party suddenly, and it is still the duty of the coroner to hold an inquest.[513] Indeed the presumption is that he has acted in good faith and on sufficient cause.[514] And so when several persons have been suddenly killed by the same violent cause, under circumstances proper to be inquired of by a coroner’s inquest, it is proper and necessary for the coroner, acting in good faith, to hold a separate inquest over each body.[515] A coroner’s inquest is a judicial investigation. The coroner cannot delegate his authority to any one. Neither can he appoint a deputy under the common law. He must act in person as any other judicial officer; and it may safely be said that a coroner has no power to appoint a deputy coroner, except where special provision is made therefor by statute.[516] In England, a coroner’s court is a court of record, and it has accordingly been held that trespass cannot be maintained for turning a person out of a room where the coroner is about to take an inquisition.[517] But in this country, it may safely be said that a coroner’s court is not one of record, but of inferior jurisdiction.[518] The performance of the functions of a coroner are judicial in their character; so judicial that he is protected under the principles which protect judicial officers from responsibility in a civil action brought by a private person. His proceedings amount to entries concerning matters of public interest, made under the sanction of an official oath, and in compliance or presumed compliance of the law.[519]
Of his Authority to Hold an Inquest.—His authority to hold an inquest is not confined to the body of a person who may have died within his territorial jurisdiction, but extends to all bodies brought within his jurisdiction, no matter where death may have taken place.[520] So in any case where, after burial, an inquest becomes necessary to determine the manner of the death of a person who, dying in one, is buried in another county, the coroner of the latter county is the proper officer to hold the inquest.[521] A coroner cannot hold a second inquest while the first is existing. As we have seen, in holding an inquest the coroner performs a judicial duty, and he is functus officio as soon as the verdict has been returned. He can hold no second inquest in the same case unless the first has been quashed by a court of competent jurisdiction, and a new inquiry ordered. He cannot set aside or quash his own inquest. If he were allowed to hold two inquests, not only might the greatest inconvenience arise from the inconsistent findings of the respective juries, but such a practice would be liable to great abuse, and as the object of the proceeding is merely preliminary, the main purpose being to ascertain whether it is probable that a crime has been committed, and to examine the facts and circumstances and preserve the evidence, all the ends of this inquiry are answered by one inquisition, super visum corporis. We believe no reported case is to be found in this country where a second inquisition has been held, the first remaining undischarged, nor is any such practice known to or recognized by our laws.[522]
The Inquest must be Held upon View of the Body.
The coroner can in no case hold an inquest except upon view of the body. This is jurisdictional and cannot be waived by any one. He is not bound to hold an inquest before burial of the body takes place. When it has been buried, and he believes an inquest necessary, he is vested with authority to have the body disinterred and hold his inquest, and if necessary direct a post-mortem examination to be made, but after having done so, he must cause it to be reburied.[523] Deep interests are involved in the proper discharge of the duties of coroners; the character, liberty, and perhaps the life of a citizen accused of crime on the one hand, and on the other the aiding of public justice in establishing the guilt and securing the punishment of the actual criminal. Many of the questions which fall within the scope of a coroner’s inquisition are of an intricate and most perplexing character, a correct solution of which can only be arrived at by minds the best instructed and habituated to their investigation. In many cases some of these questions can be satisfactorily settled by the evidence of persons having cognizance more or less direct of the facts; in others, however, they can only be solved by the facts deduced from pathological anatomy, and other circumstances connected with the dead body, the cause of the extinction of life in which is the subject of the inquest.
In Massachusetts Office of Coroner Abolished.—Indeed, in Massachusetts the office of coroner was abolished in 1877, and the governor was invested with power, and it is his duty, to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the council, able and discreet men, learned in the science of medicine, to be medical examiners, whose duties are to make examinations as provided in the statute upon the view of the dead bodies of such persons only as are supposed to have come to their death by violence.[524]
Coroner may Employ Professional Skill.—A thorough examination aided by professional skill is in general absolutely necessary to the proper administration of justice. It would no doubt be strange if a coroner had no authority to pledge the responsibility of the county for the compensation of all auxiliary services which are necessary to the proper execution of his office, and which he can by no other means command; for instance, when his duty requires him to disinter a body, he cannot be expected to do it with his own hands, or by hands paid for with his means. Indeed it has been said that, in this enlightened age, a coroner who would consign to the grave the body over which he had held an inquest, without availing himself of the lights which the medical science has placed within his reach, would in most cases fall short of what his official duty requires.[525] It is the generally accepted view of the law now that it is the duty of a coroner holding an inquest super visum corporis to avail himself of professional skill and aid, and his contract will bind the county to the payment of a reasonable compensation for making a post-mortem examination.[526]
Post-Mortem Examination.
Whether such examination should take place before the coroner has empanelled a jury seems to be an open question. We would venture the opinion that it should not, inasmuch as the jury ought to see and view the body in the same condition, as near as may be, as it was when found, and not after it has been mutilated, as it must need be by a post-mortem examination. It is, however, settled that the post mortem should not be in the presence of the jury, and that they are to be instructed by the testimony of the physicians who are designated by the coroner to make the examination.[527] The coroner’s right to dissect the dead body of a human being does not extend to all cases. Such a power could be wielded with the most injurious effects upon a community. His power to dissect is confined to those cases where he is authorized by law to hold an inquest upon the body. But a post-mortem examination, conducted by surgeons employed by a coroner holding an inquest, is not a part of the inquest in such a sense as that every citizen has a right freely to attend it. At common law it was essential to the validity of a coroner’s inquisition that the jury should view the body. And so is our law. But it was never required that the body should be dissected in any case. It is discretionary with the coroner to cause a dissection to be made, and to select the surgeons. He has also a discretion to determine whether any person, and what persons, may be present besides the surgeons. Not even the jurors have a right to witness the examination. They are to be informed of what it discloses by the testimony of the surgeons. Indeed, no person has a right to be present at the post-mortem examination upon the ground that he is suspected of having caused the death. He loses no legal right by being excluded. He has no right to dissect the body. If the coroner’s jury pronounce him guilty, the inquest, like the indictment of a grand jury, simply makes him liable to arrest.[528]