Mullins v. State

• Decision Date: 03 September 1980
• Docket Number: No. 66854,66854
• Citation: 387 So.2d 1151
• Parties: Mary Frances MULLINS et al. v. STATE of Louisiana et al.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 1151

387 So.2d 1151

Mary Frances MULLINS et al. v. STATE of Louisiana et al.

No. 66854.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 3, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1980.

Charles J. Pisano, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-applicants.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Warren E. Mouledoux, Kendall L. Vick, Robert L. Danner, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondents.

DIXON, Chief Justice.

This declaratory judgment action was filed by seven plaintiffs against the State of Louisiana, the Coroner of Jefferson Parish and the Estate of Bennie Verdun for the stated purpose of declaring the "Status of the Coroner of the Parish of Jefferson as a State Agency to the State of Louisiana." The object of the suit, we gather from the briefs, is to determine whether the state can be held liable in a suit for wrongful death said to have been caused by the coroner. There is no evidence in the record, and the matter was apparently submitted on memoranda filed by the parties.

The district court overruled all exceptions and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, "declaring that the Coroner for the Parish of Jefferson is a State Agency of the State of Louisiana," and that "this same agency relationship . . . existed on November 27th, 1972."

The Court of Appeal affirmed the rulings of the trial court on the exceptions, but reversed the holding on the agency relationship of the coroner to the state. Writs were granted on application of plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal opinion was based on a definition of "agency" in R.S. 36:3 and the relationship between the coroner and the parish government for expenses of the office, a report of his work and for filling a vacancy in the office.

The definition of "agency" in R.S. 36:3(1) is of no relevance to the decision of the question here presented. The first sentence in R.S. 36:3 is: "For the purposes of this Title the following terms shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:". Title 36 of the Revised Statutes is "Organization of Executive Branch of State Government," a reorganization statute enacted in 1977.

The proper test for determining whether an office is a state agency was first announced by this court in State v. Taylor, 44 La.Ann. 783, 11 So. 132 (1892), and has been consistently followed by the courts of this state. State v. Dark, 195 La. 139, 196 So. 47 (1940); State ex rel. Porterie v. Smith, 184 La. 263, 166 So. 72 (1935); Williams v. Guerre, 182 La. 745, 162 So. 609 (1935); State ex rel. Porterie v. Jones, 181 La. 390, 159 So. 594 (1935); State v. Titus, 152 La. 1011, 95 So. 106 (1922); State v. Rogers, 138 La. 867, 70 So. 863 (1916); Cosenza v. Aetna Insurance Co., 341 So.2d 1304 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1977); Johnson v. Northern Assurance Company of America, 193 So.2d 920 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1967).

As enunciated by the court in State v. Taylor, supra: ". . . If the office is created by the legislature, or is established in the first instance by the constitution, it is a state office . . ." 11 So. at 133. This rule sets forth a reasonable and practical guide for determining whether a particular office or agency is part of the state government or is parochial or local in nature. The principle embodied in the rule is that ". . . the creation and conferring of an office involves a delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions of government . . ." State v. Dark, 195 La. at 149, 196 So. at 50. For example, sheriffs and their deputies have been found to occupy state office, in recognition of the fact that the office of sheriff is created by the state constitution, and operates independently of the parish. Foster v. Hampton, 352 So.2d 197 (La.1977); State ex rel. Porterie v. Jones, supra; State v. Titus, supra; Johnson v. Northern Assurance Company of America, supra.

The office of the coroner, like the sheriff, is created by the constitution, and its existence has been mandated by every state constitution since 1845. See La.Const. of 1974, art. 5, § 29; La.Const. of 1921, art. 7, § 70; La.Const. of 1913, art. 119; La.Const. of 1898, art. 119; La.Const. of 1879, art. 118; La.Const. of 1868, tit. IV, art. 93; La.Const. of 1864, tit. V, art. 84; La.Const. of 1852, tit. IV, art. 80; La.Const. of 1845, tit. IV, art. 83. While it is true that the coroner enjoys only parishwide jurisdiction in the exercise of his functions, the local governing authority has no power to abolish this constitutionally created office. The 1974 constitution is representative of all prior constitutions in its declaration that "(i)n each parish a coroner shall be elected . . ." La.Const. of 1974, art. 5, § 29. (Emphasis added).

The nature of the coroner's office has changed profoundly since its inception in the twelfth century. The office was initially established to safeguard "the pecuniary interests of the crown . . . arising from the administration of criminal justice." I. W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law 84 (7th ed. 1956). For example, the coroner was invested with the power to conduct inquests when there occurred unexplained deaths in order to protect the crown's right to the chattels of convicted felons. Id. at 85. The purpose of the coroner's inquest was eventually transformed into a tool of the criminal justice system. Here in Louisiana, the coroner's jury and inquest survived until the adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1966. C.Cr.P. 101; Bennett, The 1966 Code of Criminal Procedure, 27 La.L.Rev. 175, 178 (1967).¹ It is because of its historical function that the constitutions of this state have placed the coroner's office within the judicial branch of state government.

With the abolition of the coroner's jury and inquest in 1966, the significance of the coroner as an instrument of the judiciary has been lessened. We find, nonetheless, that, despite this alteration of the role of the coroner, the office continues to perform state functions, and is not, as found by the Court of Appeal, parochial or local in nature.

Although the coroner has been relieved of his duty to conduct inquests, it is the state legislature, and not the local governing authority, that regulates the coroner's duties and powers. R.S. 33:1551 et seq.; C.Cr.P. 101 et seq. Pursuant to statutory mandate, the coroner is required to "conduct an investigation concerning the manner and cause of any death when informed that death has resulted from violence or accident, or under suspicious circumstances." C.Cr.P. 101. The legislature has carefully detailed the manner in which the coroner is to conduct an autopsy. R.S. 33:1561. The legislature has authorized each coroner to appoint assistants and other helpers whose qualifications are fixed by the legislature. R.S. 33:1552. He is required by the legislature to make written reports to the district attorney concerning the commission of crimes. C.Cr.P. 105. Additionally, the coroner is empowered by the legislature to issue subpoenas. C.Cr.P. 103. Stringent regulation by the legislature, devoid of any control by the local governing authority, assists the coroner in fulfilling his primary function: "to determine the possibility of violations of criminal law or of the existence of public health hazards in certain cases of death." Sizemore v. West Jefferson General Hospital, 260 So.2d 800, 802 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1972).

The Court of Appeal, in finding the office of the coroner to be a parochial or local office, was impressed with the fact that, under the 1974 constitution, when a vacancy occurs, the parish appoints an interim coroner until an election is held. Such a provision is a departure from the 1921 constitution, which provided for vacancies to be filled (for the unexpired term) by the Governor. La.Const.1921, art. 7, § 72. This change does not alter the state nature of the coroner's office. In the first place, the parish...