CORONER

CORONER

An official of a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION whose
designated functions include the investigation of
the cause of any violent or suspicious death that
takes place within the geographical boundaries of
his or her municipality.

The office of the coroner was established at
COMMON LAW and was one of great dignity since
coroners dealt primarily with pleas concerning
the crown. In the early 2000s, statutes establish
the terms and procedure of the coroner’s office,
which has been replaced in some states with the
office of medical examiner.

The main function of a coroner is to con-
duct inquests, but other powers and duties may
include the duty of acting as sheriff, in the event
of the sheriff ’s incapacity, as conservator of the
peace, or as magistrate. The duties are consid-
ered to be either judicial, ministerial, or both.

Holding Inquests
The purpose of an inquest is to gather evi-
dence that may be used by the police in their
exploration of a violent or suspicious death and
the subsequent prosecution of a person if death
ensued from a criminal act.

An inquest is not a trial but rather a criminal
proceeding of a preliminary, investigatory
nature. It is not a criminal prosecution but may
result in the discovery of facts justifying one.
Statutes mandate that whenever there exists
reasonable ground to believe that a death
resulted from violence, unlawful means, or other
mysterious or unknown causes, an inquest must
be held. Death by disease, natural causes, NEGLI-
GENCE of the deceased, accident, or suicide does
not warrant the commencement of an inquest,
unless statute so requires.

A coroner should not arbitrarily or capri-
ciously hold an inquest. The presumption is that
when a coroner decides to hold an inquest it is
made in exercise of his or her sound discretion,
in GOOD FAITH, and for sufficient cause. Most
statutes require that a coroner make a prelimi-
nary inquiry into the cause of death before sum-
moning a jury.

Time and Place The general requirement is
that an inquest be held immediately upon the
notice to the coroner of the death or discovery of
the dead body. The inquest may either take place
in the territory of the coroner in whose jurisdic-
tion the body was found or where the death
itself took place.

Summoning and Swearing the Jury If it is
public knowledge that the decedent was killed
by someone who is already in police custody,
then it is not necessary to summon a jury to
hold an inquest. A coroner’s jury is usually sum-
moned by warrant but may be summoned per-
sonally by the coroner. A juror who refuses to
attend an inquest may be subject to a fine and a
CONTEMPT citation. The general practice is that
the jury should be sworn in in the presence of
the body.

Autopsy Incident to the coroner’s duties is
the power to order an autopsy when appropriate
and essential to ascertain the circumstances and
the nature of death. The reasons underlying this
power are numerous—the primary one being
that a thorough examination of a body is neces-
sary since an accused person may be acquitted if
there is some doubt as to the cause of death.
Similarly, a proper examination of the cause of
death should exclude all other possible causes
that would not support a criminal investigation
and subsequent prosecution.

Some statutes provide that a coroner is not
authorized to hold an autopsy where no suspi-
cion of foul play exists or where no inquest is
being held. A needless autopsy may be consid-
ered unreasonable interference with a dead
body. If authorized, however, a coroner may
hold an autopsy without the consent of the
decedent’s next of kin. Civil liability may be
imposed upon coroners and their physicians
who perform improper or unauthorized autop-
sies.

To examine the body during an autopsy, a
coroner may hire an expert physician, the selec-
tion of whom is within the coroner’s discretion.
This power must be exercised with great cau-
tion. During the autopsy, the coroner has the
discretionary power to decide who, if anyone,
should be present aside from the surgeon or sur-
geons. Neither a person accused of criminally
causing the death nor the jurors have a right to
witness the actual dissection of the cadaver.

View of Body Statutes require that the
coroner and jury together must have a view of
the body except in cases where the body cannot
be found or is too decomposed for view. The
purpose of this inspection is to ascertain from
the appearance of the body how the death was
caused. The jury also hears the summaries of
various medical reports regarding the condition
of the body to help it reach its determinations
concerning the cause of death.

Verdict and Inquisition It is the duty of the
coroner to accept from the jury the verdict,
which should identify the deceased, if possible,
or state that the deceased is unknown and
should include how, when, and where the dece-
dent died. The coroner submits a return of
inquest, also known as an inquisition, which is a
record of the jury’s finding, that must be exe-
cuted in accordance with statutory require-
ments.

The effect of the verdict at common law is
that it is a sufficient basis for prosecution for
murder or MANSLAUGHTER so long as the jury
finds evidence supporting prosecution. Under
some statutes, its effect is not as strong as a find-
ing by a GRAND JURY but has merely been held
to render a person accused of illegally causing
the death liable to arrest.

Many jurisdictions require that the coroner complete a certificate of death showing the
cause and probable manner of death subsequent to the termination of the inquest.

Arrest

It is the power and the duty of the coroner to have anyone implicated by an inquest in murder or manslaughter to be arrested and held for trial.

If a statute gives a coroner magisterial jurisdiction in HOMICIDE cases, he or she may issue warrants for the arrest of the person probably chargeable with the crime and hold the person to answer or discharge the charges.

Record of Inquest as Evidence
Civil Actions In general, evidence given at an inquest has not been permitted to be used against either party in a civil action. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Some authorities hold the testimony of a witness before a coroner to be admissible if used to contradict other testimony given when the person is a witness or party in such an action. Other jurisdictions hold that such evidence by a party is admissible as an admission against interest. For example, a defendant’s admission at an inquest of driving at an unlawful speed was admissible as an admission against interest in a civil action for negligence.

Some jurisdictions allow the coroner’s find-
ings to be used in a civil action to show the cause
of death. The general practice in most jurisdic-
tions, however, is to allow the verdict to show
that the deceased is dead but not to show the
cause of death. The rationale underlying this
rule is that a person is not entitled to be repre-
sented by counsel at an inquest since it is merely
a preliminary investigation. The practical conse-
quences of allowing the coroner’s verdict to be
used as evidence of the cause of death is that it
could easily become the key piece of evidence in
the action. If this were to occur, the judgment
awarded in the case would probably end up
being a ratification or formal adoption of the
coroner’s verdict, thereby depriving the party to
the action of his or her rights. That person is
entitled to a formal judicial hearing or a “day in
court,” with all procedural safeguards, so that an
opportunity to dispute the evidence will be
given.

Criminal Prosecutions The main purpose
of a coroner’s inquest is to provide information
and evidence for use by the police in their inves-
tigation and detection of a crime; therefore, the
proceedings of an inquest are generally inadmis-
sible at a trial for homicide.

When a person is either under arrest or
accused of a crime at a coroner’s inquest, any
testimony that he or she gives cannot subse-
quently be used against him or her at a trial that
stems from the inquest, unless such testimony
was given voluntarily after the party was advised
of his or her constitutional rights. If an indi-
vidual testifies as a witness at an inquest but is
subsequently prosecuted, that testimony is
admissible in his or her prosecution since it was
voluntarily given at the inquest. Generally, the testimony of witnesses at an inquest cannot be used in a trial for homicide unless the witness
has died or is otherwise unavailable at the time
of the criminal prosecution.

Ordinarily, on an indictment for homicide,
neither the verdict of the coroner’s jury nor the
finding of the coroner can be used as evidence
for any purpose.

Liabilities of a Coroner
A coroner who is acting pursuant to his or
her statutory authority is immune for error,
mistake, or misconduct in the exercise of judicial
functions. A coroner, acting in a ministerial
capacity, is answerable for any abuse of those
powers. Some statutes make it a criminal offense
for a coroner to deliberately hold an inquest
when to do so clearly exceeds the scope of his or
her powers.

FURTHER READINGS
Cornwell, Patricia. 1999. Body of Evidence. New York: Pocket
Books.
Noguchi, Thomas T. 1985. Coroner at Large. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
—. 1984. Coroner. New York: Pocket Books.

CROSS-REFERENCES
Autopsy; Jury; Presumption.