State v. Wood
| Decision Date | 09 July 1928 |
| Parties | STATE v. WOOD. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Aroostook County, at Law.
Petition by Harry A. Wood for an order of disinterment of a body for evidential purposes. The trial judge dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction, and petitioner brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.
Argued before WILSON, C. J. and DUNN, DEASY, BARNES, and PATTANGALL, JJ.
Cyrus F. Small, of Caribou, and Raymond Fellows, of Bangor, for the State.
J. F. Burns, of Houlton, and Herbert T. Powers, of Ft Fairfield, for respondent.
On exceptions to the ruling of the trial judge, dismissing, for want of jurisdiction, a petition requesting an order for the disinterment of a body for evidential purposes. The petitioner was indicted for the murder of one Parker, who died from the effect of a bullet wound sustained by him. Trial was had, resulting in a verdict of manslaughter. Petitioner's defense was based on the proposition that the deceased met his death by an accidental shot fired by a friend and companion. At the time of the shooting, petitioner was standing directly in front of Parker with a loaded rifle in his hands, which he claimed was never discharged. Parker's companion was standing directly behind Parker at the time of the shooting and admittedly fired at least two shots from his revolver.
Two questions became of vital importance: First, was death caused by a rifle ball or by a revolver bullet? Second, Was the fatal shot fired from a position in front of or from behind the deceased?
A careful autopsy might have enabled these questions to be answered intelligently and definitely. No such autopsy was made. The examination made by the medical examiner is correctly characterized in the petition as "superficial."
Prior to the trial, petitioner requested the state's attorney for the county to permit the exhumation of the body in order that competent physicians and experts acting in his behalf might examine the wound sustained by Parker, which request was refused. Since the trial, he has again requested the state's attorney for the county, the Attorney General, and the medical examiner, to allow such exhumation for the purpose of making a complete and thorough examination of the fatal wound in order that the direction from which the bullet came might be determined and the nature of the wound revealed. This request was refused. Petitioner then filed, with the justice presiding at the nisi prius term of the Supreme Judicial Court next held after the term at which trial was had, a petition setting forth the facts above stated and requesting the court to order the body of Parker exhumed for the purpose of full and complete examination and in order to obtain the important information which should be revealed by such examination. The state's attorney for the county moved to dismiss this petition on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to grant the prayer of the petitioner. On this motion and on the ground stated therein, the presiding justice dismissed the petition, to which action the petitioner filed exceptions.
The only question before this court is as to the authority of the court to grant the petition.
Under certain circumstances, disinterment of the body of the deceased for evidential purposes may be ordered in civil cases. Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Griesa (C. C.) 156 F. 398; Grangers' Life Insurance Co. v. Brown, 57 Miss. 308, 34 Am. Rep. 446; State ex rel. Meyer v. Clifford, Judge, 78 Wash. 555, 139 P. 650; Painter et al. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 123 Md. 308, 91 A. 160. In the latter case, the court said:
Assuming the authority of the court to order the disinterment of a body for evidential purposes in a civil case where property rights only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Emery
...suppression of evidence material to his defense of alibi and a denial of due process. We disagree. This Court did say, in State v. Wood, 1928, 127 Me. 197, 142 A. 728: 'A trial before a jury is an investigation of matters of fact, its sole purpose being to ascertain the truth. All competent......
-
Holm Superior Court
...for the court ordered autopsy do not convince us that we should alter our conclusion. The cases cited are either criminal (State v. Wood (1928) 127 Me. 197, 142 A. 728) and thus, as we have previously noted, bring into play considerations not present in this civil action, or they rely upon ......
-
Kusky v. Laderbush
...of justice demanded it, the Trial Court had the authority in the exercise of a sound discretion to order an autopsy. State v. Wood, 127 Me. 197, 142 A. 728; Ullendorff v. Brown, 156 Fla. 655, 24 So.2d 37; Sexson v. Commonwealth, 239 Ky. 177, 39 S.W.2d 229; Silvia v. Helger, R. I., 67 A.2d 2......
-
State v. Wood
...County, at Law. Harry Wood was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Appeal denied, and judgment rendered for the State. See, also, 142 A. 728. Argued before WILSON, C. J., and PHILBROOK, DUNN, DEASY, BARNES, and PATTANGALL, J. P. Burns, of Houlton, and Herbert T. Powers, of Ft. Fairfi......