Daly v. Dimock

• Decision Date: 31 October 1887
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: DALY v. DIMOCK, Clerk of Court.

12 A. 405

55 Conn. 579

DALY

v. DIMOCK, Clerk of Court.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

October Term, 1887.

Mandamus. Case reserved from superior court.

T. E. Steel, for relator. E. O. Dimock, pro se.

CARPENTER, J. This is a writ of mandamus. The relator, Thomas D. Daly, alleges that he is indicted for murder in the second degree in causing the death of one Thomas Murphy; that the coroner held an inquest on the body of said Murphy; that the testimony of the witnesses was by the coroner reduced to writing, and lodged with the clerk of the superior court; that access to said testimony is essential to his defense to the indictment; and that said clerk, the defendant, denies him the privilege of inspecting the testimony, etc. The defendant demurs on two grounds: (1) That said testimony is not a public record; and (2) that public interest requires that said testimony should not be read by said Daly or his attorneys. The case is reserved for the advice of this court.

The decision depends upon the construction of the statute passed in 1883. As that statute is not changed in the recent revision, we shall refer to that, and not to the Session Laws of 1883. Section 2011 of the Revision is as follows: "The coroner shall reduce to writing, and shall, within ten days after any inquest has been held, return the testimony of all witnesses examined in the inquest to the clerk of the superior court in his county, together with his report of the inquest, which shall include his finding, or the verdict of the jury; and he shall also return to said clerk all certificates sent him by the medical examiner in accordance with section 2006, and all similar certificates by him made." The other sections of the act do not seem to have any special bearing upon the question before us. There are two clauses, however, that are relied on to some extent. In the 2009th section it is provided that the coroner "may order any inquest, or any part thereof, to be held in private." And in the 2016th section it is provided that "he may order and cause witnesses to be kept separate, so that they cannot communicate with one another, until they shall have testified."

We do not deem it important to consider whether the testimony, when reduced to writing, as required by law, and lodged with the clerk of the superior court, is or is not, in a strict technical sense, a public record. For the purposes of this case, we may concede that the duties of a coroner are of a judicial nature, and that the verdicts of juries and the findings of coroners are, in a general sense, matters of record. They are results and conclusions of judicial proceedings, and are clearly analogous to verdicts and judgments in ordinary courts of justice. In either case the testimony and other oral proceedings are not matters of record, unless made so by statute. In behalf of the plaintiff, it is contended that the statute does make the evidence before a coroner, when reduced to writing, a part of the record. We do not regard that as strictly true. The legislature required that such testimony should be reduced to writing by a sworn officer, and preserved for future reference. It is enough for our present purpose to say that it is a public document, relating to matters of public interest, and required by law to be kept by a public officer who is the custodian of the records of judicial proceedings and other public documents. The statute is silent in respect to the purpose for which such writings are preserved, and the use to be made of them, and by whom. In the absence of any limitation or restriction, we must assume that it was intended that they might be examined by any and all persons interested in the subject-matter. We do not consider that we are justified in saying that they may be inspected by one person, and not by another. In the absence of legislation to that effect, we cannot say that they are for the exclusive use of one person or officer, or that any one person or class of persons may not inspect or use them. The writing in question relates to the prosecution of an indictment before the superior court. We are asked to allow it to be used by the prosecution, and to sanction a refusal to let it be seen, even by the defense. We think, if the legislature had...