Request By:
Dr. Richard F. Greathouse
Jefferson County Coroner
801 Fiscal Court Building
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
As Coroner of Jefferson County, you request our opinion on questions relating to your office of coroner.
First, you ask whether it is still statutory that the coroner, upon receipt of a request from a responsible citizen, must hold an inquest in the county where the death occurred?
KRS 72.030, which required the coroner, upon the request of any responsible citizen, to hold an inquest, etc., was repealed by Acts 1978, Ch. 93. § 21, effective June 17, 1978.
Basically, KRS 72.405(2), in defining a "coroner's case", takes the place of the old KRS 72.030. That subsection of KRS 72.405 reads:
"'Coroner's case' means a case in which the coroner has reasonable cause for believing that the death of a human being within his county was caused by homicide, crime, violence, accident, suicide, poison, drowning, illegal abortion, or unusual circumstances. It also includes death in any prison, jail, or penal institution; death while in police custody; death where unattended by a physician for more than thirty-six (36) hours prior to death; and all deaths where the body is to be cremated. "
Subsection (2) stresses the coroner's having reasonable cause for believing that a person died of certain enumerated unnatural causes within his county. It is conceivable that under the broad term "reasonable cause" the coroner may hold an inquest upon the request of any responsible citizen, provided that such citizen furnishes the coroner with sufficient information to place the case under the "reasonable-cause-for-believing-in-unnatural-death" concept. The mere request of a responsible citizen, standing alone, would not be sufficient to make a coroner's case under the definition of KRS 72.405(2). In City of Ashland v. Miller, Ky., 283 S.W.2d 195 (1955), Judge Cullen pointed out that a request from a responsible citizen "means a request that is accompanied by some indication of belief that the death was other than a natural one." (Emphasis added). Thus under KRS 72.405(2), if a responsible citizen, who furnishes some indication of belief that death was other than a natural one, and that it occurred in the subject coroner's county, requests an inquest, the request involves a "coroner's case" and should be honored.
The definition "coroner's case" applies automatically where the death occurs in any prison, jail, or penal institution, or while in police custody, or where the death involves a person unattended by a physician for more than thirty-six (36) hours prior to death, and where the body is to be cremated.
Your second question reads:
"Is it still statutory that the coroner's jury shall fix the responsibility for the death in a coroner's case?"
Under KRS 72.050, the inquest jury was required to "inquire upon oath and state in writing, if it knows, when, where, how and by whom the death was caused." (Emphasis added). (Repealed, Acts 1978, Ch. 93, § 21).
At this point it is critical to keep in mind that the historical function of the coroner has always been to aid in the administration of criminal justice by inquiring into the circumstances of violent or suspicious deaths. Indeed, the very object of an inquest is to obtain information as to whether death was caused by some criminal act. City of Ashland v. Miller, Ky., 283 S.W.2d 195 (1955) 196. In 18 Am.Jur.2d, Coroners or Medical Examiners, § 7, page 520, this is written: "The object (of an inquest) is to obtain information as to whether death was caused by some criminal act and to obtain evidence to prevent the escape of the guilty, as well as to furnish the foundation for a criminal prosecution in case death is shown to be felonious. The object of an inquest is not only to determine the cause of death but also to exclude other supposable or possible causes."
The coroner is directed by KRS 72.410 to investigate the "cause and manner" of all deaths falling within the terms "coroner's case", as defined by KRS 72.405(2). (Emphasis added).
Note the range of investigative powers collected in KRS 72.415. However, KRS 72.420(3) deals with the coroner jury's verdict after holding an inquest. It provides that:
"In the event the jury returns a verdict of murder, manslaughter, or other criminal act, the coroner shall arrest the named individual or notify the appropriate law enforcement authority to arrest such individual to be dealt with according to law. A copy of the verdict shall be filed with the appropriate circuit court clerk. "
Clearly the foregoing statute reguires the coroner's jury, if it returns a verdict of murder, manslaughter, or other criminal act, to fix the responsibility for the death in the coroner's case by designating the crime involved and naming the person or persons the jury believes committed the alleged crime. Under the latter statute, the coroner is required to arrest the named person or persons charged with alleged crime or notify the appropriate law enforcement authority to arrest such person or persons so criminally charged to be dealt with according to law. A copy of the verdict must be filed with the circuit court clerk of that county. It may be noted that the statute does not require that the verdict document or other inquest records be actually turned over to a grand jury or commonwealth's attorneys. See Poyner v. Commonwealth, 274 Ky. 813, 120 S.W.2d 649 (1938) 651. However, the lack of such formality in no way militates against the criminal law role of the coroner and the coroner's jury.
Where a coroner's jury verdict spells out a crime, the coroner should in any event notify the appropriate prosecutor in the county of the holding of the inquest and the filing of the verdict in the circuit court clerk's office. Thus the finding of the coroner's jury is merely advisory to the officials charged with the administration of the criminal law. 18 Am.Jur.2d, Coroners or Medical Examiners, § 15, page 529.
Although an inquest is a basically criminal proceeding from the time that a crime is established, it is not a trial on the merits. It is in reality an ex parte investigation of supposed or alleged crime resulting in homicide for the purpose of aiding in the administration of the criminal laws of this state. The record of the inquest cannot become evidence in another inquiry or law suit as to the cause of the death investigated. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Milward, 118 Ky. 716, 82 S.W. 364 (1904) 366.