State ex rel. Lopez-Pacheco v. Jones

• Decision Date: 06 May 1965
• Docket Number: LOPEZ-PACHEC,A,No. 37608,37608
• Citation: 66 Wn.2d 199,401 P.2d 841
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: The STATE of Washington on the relation of Dr. O. A.ppellant, v. Dr. William E. JONES, Spokane County Coroner, Respondent.

Page 199

66 Wn.2d 199

401 P.2d 841

The STATE of Washington on the relation of Dr. O. A.

LOPEZ-PACHECO, Appellant, v. Dr. William E. JONES, Spokane County Coroner, Respondent.

No. 37608.

Supreme Court of Washington, Department 1.

May 6, 1965.

William L. Bennett, Spokane, for appellant.

George A. Kain, Pros. Atty., Edward J. Parry, Deputy Pros. Atty., Spokane, for respondent.

OTT, Judge.

The relator sought a writ of mandate to compel Dr. William E. Jones, Coroner of Spokane County, to call a coroner's jury to inquire into the cause of death of his son, Olaguibeet Angel Lopez-Vera. The relator alleged, Inter alia, that on January 15, 1962, his son was shot and killed in Spokane county; that 'Dr. William E. Jones, based upon his investigation, the investigation of the prosecuting attorney's office, the investigation of the Spokane Police Department, and others, * * * drew the conclusion that the deceased 'shot Policeman Dennis Apperson and then, in an exchange of gunfire, lost his life"; that, in concluding that decedent died as a result of an exchange of gunfire, the coroner failed to recover certain bullets or slugs, failed to make any ballistic, chemical or scientific tests, and failed to resolve the discrepancies between Dr. Ludden's autopsy report and the reports of the prosecuting attorney and police officers.

The relator further alleged that Dr. Jones' finding of justifiable homicide on the part of the Spokane police and his failure to resolve the conflicting theories constituted arbitrary conduct; that the coroner's findings in this regard 'caused irreparable harm and damage to the reputation and memory of the deceased, Olaguibeet Angel Lopez Vera, and has caused irreparable harm and damage to the reputation and name of the relator (Dr. O. A. Lopez-Pacheco) and has caused relator great mental anguish, shame, and torment'; and that there is no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law available to relator herein; 'WHEREFORE, your relator prays for judgment and that the Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the respondent, William E. Jones, as Spokane County Coroner, to forthwith hold a formal coroner's inquest in relation to the death of the deceased.'

The answer of Dr. Jones, Inter alia, denied that he had been arbitrary and capricious in failing to hold a formal inquest. Dr. Jones moved to dismiss the proceeding. The motion was supported by affidavits and the record in Spokane County cause No. 169604 which had previously put in issue the coroner's conduct in his investigation of this death and had been dismissed.

Relator's attorney resisted the motion by filing an affidavit repeating the allegations of the petition upon which the charge of arbitrary and capricious conduct was predicated. He asserted that a person who was near the vehicle at the time of the shooting would testify that 'no gun was visible to him in the hands of the deceased,' which would establish an inference that Lopez-Vera was unarmed.

The court granted the motion to dismiss upon two grounds, one of which was '1. that the 'Affidavit and Application for Peremptory Writ of Mandate' herein fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.'

From the judgment of dismissal, relator appeals.

This appeal presents a single issue: Did Dr. Jones, in performing his duties as coroner of Spokane county, act arbitrarily and capriciously when he decided not to hold a formal inquest into the death of Lopez-Vera, after the body had been sent to Puerto Rico and interred, and after he had, in the performance of his duties immediately after the shooting, determined the cause of death and that it was not accomplished by unlawful means?

The statute relating to the holding of an inquest provided:

'Any coroner, In his discretion, may hold an inquest if he suspects that the death of a person * * * resulted from unlawful means, * * * or through the instrumentality of some other person: * * *.' (Italics ours.) Laws of 1953, chapter 188, § 3, p. 401, RCW 36.24.020.

When an administrative officer, by statute, is granted discretionary authority, the burden of establishing arbitrary and capricious conduct rests upon the party asserting it. State ex rel. Cosmopolis Consolidated School District No. 99 v. Bruno, 61 Wash.2d 461, 378 P.2d 691 (1963). Arbitrary and capricious conduct is defined as follows:

'Arbitrary and capricious action of administrative bodies means...