I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 0 2 6 7 - S CT I N R E : B OD Y

O F V IC TOR I A SP I ER S A G E 10, DE CE AS ED : CA RMEN D. HAS T I NGS
v. J OEL S COTT

S PI ERS
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 10/ 2007 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. F ORRES T A. J OHN S ON, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: ADA M S COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: EDW I N W OOD S , J R. ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LE E: J AM ES M . P RI ES T, J R. NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 08/ 21/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s cas e comes bef or e the C ourton appea l fr om t he C i r cui tC ourtof A dams C ounty. C a rm e n H a stin g s p e titio n e d th e c irc u it co u rt to h a v e th e b o d y o f h e r d a u g h ter , V icto ria (“T o ri ”) S p iers, d isi n terred s o that sh e c o u ld be bu ri ed i n W ichita F all s, T ex as, w h ere T o ri had l i ved w i th H as t i ngs . J oel Spi er s , T or i ’ s natur al f ather , obj ect ed. T he ci r cui tcourtdeni ed H a stin g s’s p e tit io n , an d H a stin g s’ a p p e a led to th is C o u rt.

F AC T S AN D C OU RS E OF P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2. V i ct or i a Spi er s w as born J anuary 4, 1995, i n W i chit a F al l s, T exas. A round f i ve
m o n ths a ft er T o ri’ s b irth, T o ri ’s fathe r, Jo el S p iers, co n tacted C arm en H asti n g s, T o ri ’s

### Has tings and Spierswere never marrie d. At thetimeof Tori’ s birth, Ha stingsre si ded 1 

### in O klah oma, an d S piers resid ed inMississip pi. Has tings t es ti fi ed that s he wa s l iving te mporarily in Okl ahom a, but s he m oved 2 

### per manently to Wic hita Fall s l at er in 1995. 2 m o ther, t o leth er k n o w th a t h e w a n ted to b e a p art of T o ri ’s l if e. S h o rt ly the rea ft er, 1 H a stin g s m e t S p ier s in T e x a s w ith T o ri fo r a v isit. A fte r th e m e e tin g , H a stin g s re tu rn e d to O k lah o m a w ith T o ri, an d S p ier s re tu rn e d h o m e to M iss iss ip p i. 2 ¶3
. S p iers ne x t con tacted H asti n g s in S ep tem b er 19 9 5 , t o l et H asti n g s k n o w that S p iers’s p a re n ts w a n ted to m e e t T o ri. T h e S p ier s fa m ily s e n t H a s tin g s ro u n d -trip tick e ts to M i s s i s s i ppi s o thatH as t i ngs and Tori coul d come f ora vi s i t . H as t i ngs c ame t o M i s s i s s i ppi f ors i x w eeks s o thatthe Spi er s f ami l y coul d m eetand s pend t i m e w i th T or i
. H as t i ngs and T o ri sta y e d w ith H a stin g s’s b ro th e r in M c C o m b d u rin g th e v isit. ¶ 4
. A b o u t a w e e k b e fo re H a stin g s w a s s c h e d u led to re tu rn h o m e fro m M iss iss ip p i, V ick ie Spi er s , J oel Spi er s ’ s m other , i nf orm ed H as t i ngs thatthe Spi er s f am i l y w oul d be s ui ng H as t i ngs f

orcus t ody of Tori
. D ur i ng herl as tw eek i n M i s s i s s i ppi , H as t i ngs di d notal l ow the Spi er s f ami l y t o s ee Tor i , butal l ow ed herow n fa m i l y t o spend m or e t i m e w i th T or i i ns t ead. H a stin g s th e n re tu rn e d to W ich ita F a lls w ith T o ri. ¶ 5 . In 1 9 9 7 , S p ier s a n d H a stin g s w e re n a m e d T o ri’ s “ jo in t m a n a g in g c o n se rv a to rs” in T exas . T he Texas court ’ s or derm ade H as t i ngs T or i ’ s pr i m ary cus t odi al pa r ent , gi vi ng her the e x clus ive rig h t t o estab li sh lega l r esid en ce for T o ri
. F rom 1 9 9 7 u n ti l 20 0 0 , the S p iers fa m ily tra v e led to W ich ita fa lls fo r v isits w ith T o ri. A s T o ri g o t o ld e r, th e S p ier s fa m ily
w oul d s om et i m es t ake Tor i f orext ended vi s i t s overhers pr i ng br eak, s um m ervaca t i on, and C hr i s tm as br eak.

### 3

¶6
. I n J ul y 2 00 5, Tor i tr a ve l e d t o M i s s i s s i pp i f oro ne o f

h e re xt ended vi s i t s . O ne of H as t i ngs ’ s nei ghbor s i n W i chi t a Fal l s , B enni e, w as a pi l otand partow nerof a pr i vat e pl ane. H e agr eed t o f

l y H as t i ngs t o N at chez , M i s s i s s i ppi , on J ul y 30 t o pi ck up Tori
. B enni e w as al s o the gr andf

atherof one of T or i ’ s bes tf

r i ends , J es s i e, w ho accom pan i ed B enni e and H as t i ngs on the f

l i ght
. B enni e, H as t i ngs , and J es s i e r eac hed N at chez , w her e Tori w as
w ai t i ng f orthem. T he four bo ar ded the pl ane t o r eturn t o W i chi t a Fal l s , and s hort l y af t er take o ff, the p lane cra sh ed
. H asti n g s w as the on ly su rviv o r of the cra sh
. T o ri w as ten y ea rs ol d. ¶7. A s a r es ul tof

a di s put e betw een Spi er s a nd Tor i ’ s s t epf ather , A dams C ounty C or oner J ames Lee s oughtauthor i zat i on and di r ect i ves f r om the C i r cui tC ourtof A dams C ounty as t o the r el eas e of

T or i ’ s r emai ns . O n A ugus t1, t he tr i al cour ti s s ued an or derdi r ect i ng L ee to re lea se T o ri’s r e m a in s to S p ier s. T h e o rd e r sta ted in p a rt: [T o ri’s] n a tu ra l m o th e r, o n e C a rm e n H a stin g s , w a s s e v e re ly in ju re d in sa id ai rpl ane cr as h and i s pr es ent l y i n cr i t i cal condi t i on atthe U ni ver s i ty of M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cal C ent eri n J acks on, M i s s i s s i ppi , and i s w hol l y unabl e at thi s t i m e due t o hers ever e i nj ur i es and r es ul t i ng phys i cal and ment al condi t i on, t o m ake a ny deci s i ons as t o i nt erm entof herdaught er ’ s body. T h e o rde r w en t o n t o say , “[t ] h is o rde r i s further su b ject to an y furth er or fu tu re co u rt pr ocee di ngs , i n the eve ntthatthe chi l d’ s natur al m other , C arm en H as t i ngs , m akes s uf f i ci ent
m edi cal r ecove ry, and des i r es t o see k furtherl egal det erm i nat i on of s ai d chi l d’ s f

i nal r es t i ng p la c e .” ¶8. O n the date that T ori ’ s f uner al and bur i al w er e s chedul ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi , H as t i ngs p e tit io n e d the circ u it co u rt se e k in g a n o rd e r to p re v e n t T o ri’s r e m a in s fr o m b e in g b u rie d in M i s s i s s i ppi
. A tt ache d t o H as t i ngs ’ s pe t i t i on w as he rs t at ement , s i gned and w i tnes s ed, that

### Wh ile cases suchas this w ou ld p rop erly b e b ro u g ht inchan cery co urt, th is case 3 

### ori ginate d from t

he AdamsCounty c oroner’ s petition in theCircuit Cour t of Adam s Count

y. Th erefore, the circu it court sat as a court of equ ityinth is matter. Tys on Breeders , I nc. v. Harris on, 94 0 S o. 2 d 2 30 , 23 3-3 4 (M iss. 20 06 ) (recog n iz ingthat circu it courts are courts of generaljuris dic ti on that m ay s ome time s he ar equity m atters ). 4 “des pi t e herphys i cal c ondi t i on, ” s he w as “abl e t o m ake appr opr i at e dec i s i ons and w oul d l i ke [T o ri ] b u ri ed in T ex as.” A telep h o n ic h ea ri n g w as h eld, a n d the tri al c o u rtd en ied H asti n g s’s pet i t i on. T or i ’ s f

uner al pr ocee ded as pl anned, an d herr emai ns w er e bur i ed atthe B ethel B a p tist C h u rc h C e m e ter y in L ib e rty , M iss iss ip p i. ¶9. O n D ece m ber23, 2005, H as t i ngs f i l ed an a m ended pe t i t i on w i th the tr i al court , as ki ng that T o ri ’s rem ains b e d isi n terred a n d tr an sp o rt ed to W ichita F all s for b u ri al. T h e tri al co u rt hel d a hea r i ng on the pet i t i on on M ar ch 6, 2006, and on t hats ame day, ent er ed an or der d e n y in g H a stin g s’s re q u e st. H a stin g s a p p e a ls th e trial c o u rt’s d e c isio n to th is C o u rt. A N A L Y S IS ¶10
. T his case deals w i th the m ostdeli cat e of subj ectm at t ers . “[ A ] cou rtof equity can best det e rmi ne the r i gh t s o f

r e l a t i ve s a nd f

r i e nd s r e s pe c t i ng the c a r e a nd c on tr ol o f the r emai ns
o f t h e ird e a d a n d d e c id e u p o n e a c h s e t o f c ir c u m s ta n c e s w h a t is th e p ro p e r c o u rs e o f a c tio n .” Ho o d v. S p ra tt , 357 So. 2d 135, 138 ( M i s s . 1978)
. T hi s C ourtw i l l notdi s turb the f i ndi ngs 3 of a cha ncel l or( orci r cui tj udge i n t hi s cas e) w hen s upport ed by s ubs t ant i al cr edi bl e evi dence unl es s the j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on, w as m ani f es t l y w r ong, w as cl ear l y err oneous , oran
e rr o n e o u s le g a l s ta n d a rd w a s a p p lie d
. Sanders on v. Sanders on , 82 4 S o. 2d 62 3, 62 5 (M i ss. 2 0 0 2 ).

### 5

¶11. T he s ubj ectm at t er of t his case fi rs tar os e as a di s put e betw een Spi er s and B r i an H as t i ng s , Tor i ’ s s t e pf

a the ra nd Carmen Has t i ng s ’ s hu s ba nd
. The A da ms Cou nty c or oner
s oughtgui dance on the mat t erf r om t he ci r cui tcourt , and the ci r cui tcourtor der ed the cor oner to release T o ri ’s r em ains t o S p iers. T o ri ’s bo d y w as b u ri ed in M issi ssipp i ov er H asti n g s’s obj ect i ons . A f

t err ecupe r at i ng f

r om he ri nj ur i es , H as t i ngs f i l ed the amended pet i t i on s eeki ng t o have Tor i ’ s r emai ns di s i nt err ed and m ov ed t o T exas . O n appea l , w e dea l w i th the tr i al
co u rt ’s de n ial o f H asti n g s’s am en d ed p eti ti o n , n o t th e o ri g inal d ec isi o n o f w h ethe r T o ri shou l d h ave b een b uri ed in M i ssi ssi pp i or T exas. ¶12. I n Hood , thi s C ourt adopt ed the “more compass i onat e appr oach” t o si tuat i ons s uch as th ese , all o w ing the re m o v al an d reinterm en t of a b o d y w h en “c o m p ell ing re a so n s” a re p re s e n te d fo r d o in g s o . Hood , 357 So. 2d at136-37. R ul es m us tbe f ol l ow ed i n cons i der i ng thes e ca ses. C it ing the P en n sy lvan ia c ase o f P etti gr ew v. P etti

gr ew , 207 Pa. 313, 56 A
. 878 (1 9 0 4 ), Hood s t at ed: T h e first ru le w a s th a t th e su rv iv in g sp o u se h a d th e p a ra m o u n t rig h t to des i gnat e the bur i al si t e an d, i f the part i es w er e l i vi ng i n norm al m ar i t al r el at i ons , a very s tr ong cas e w oul d be r equi r ed t o j us t i f y j udi ci al i nt er f

er ence w i th the s urvi vor ' s w i s h. Secondl y, i n the abs ence of a s urvi vi ng s pous e, the r i ghtof s el ect i on of

a bur i al s i t e w as i n the nextof ki n i n or derof

thei rr el at i on t o the dec edent , and the r i ght s of m or e di s t antki n m i ght be m od i fi ed by ci r cumst ance s of

s peci al i nt i m acy ora s s oci at i on w i th the dece dent
. T hi r dl y, to w h a t ex ten t th e d e sire s o f th e d e c e d e n t as to p lac e o f b u ria l sh o u ld p re v a il againsttho se of

the survi ving spou se w as l eftan o pen qu est i on , bu tas agai nst th e re m o terc o n n e c tio n s, su c h w is h e s, e sp e c ially if stro n g ly a n d re c e n tly e x p re ss e d , w o u ld u su a lly p re v a il. Hood , 357 So. 2d at137. “Ther e i s no r i gi d rul e f orei t her perm i tt i ng orr ef us i ng r emoval
o f a b o d y o n ce interred a n d e ac h c ase m u st be d eterm ined o n it s o w n m erit s w ith d u e re g ard t o” fi ve fact ors: (1) pu bli c int eres t , (2) w i shes of the de ceden t , (3) r i gh t s and feel i ng s of tho se

### 6

ent i t l ed t o be hea r d by re as on of r el at i ons hi p, ( 4) r i ght s and pr i nci pl es of r el i gi ous bodi es or otheror gani zat i ons w hi ch gr ant ed i nt erm enti n t he f i r s tburi al si t e, and ( 5) w hethercons ent
w a s g iv e n to in te rm e n t in th e fi rs t b u ri a l s ite b y th e o n e c la im in g th e ri g h t o f r e m o v a l. I d. ¶1 3. Forobvi ous r e a s on s , mos to f the c a s e s o n the s ub

j e c to f di s i nt erm entof hum an
rem ai ns, such as Hood and P etti gr ew , inv o lve a su rviv ing sp o u se. “[I] n the a b sen ce o f a
su rv iv in g sp o u se , the rig h t o f se lec tio n o f a b u ria l site w a s in the n e x t of k in in o rd e r o f th e ir
r el at i on t o the dec edent
. . . . ” Hood , 3 57 S o. 2d at137. H er e w e ar e f ace d w i th the compet i ng i nt er es t s of

T or i ’ s bi ol ogi cal par ent s , w ho both s har e the s ame degr ee of r el at i on t o T or i
. T heref

ore, w e m us tturn t o the tr i al court ’ s w ei ghi ng of the Hood fa c to rs to d e ter m in e w h e th e r d e n y in g H a stin g s’s re q u e st to d isin terT o ri’s re m a in s a n d m o v e th e m to T exas w as an abus e of

di s cr et i on. ¶14. W hi l e the tr i al courtf ound i n i t s w r i tt en or derthat“publ i c i nt er es ti s i n not di s turbi ng a gra ve and a gai ns tr emovi ng a body once i ti s bur i ed, ” the tr i al courtf ound i n i t s bench
rul i ng thatpubl i c i nt er es tw as nota f act ori n thi s cas e. N ots urpr i s i ngl y, gi ven heryoung age, ther e w as no evi dence as t o T or i ’ s w i s hes on w her e s he w oul d be bur i ed. T her e w as no
e v id e n c e th a t th e rig h ts a n d p rin c ip les o f a n y re lig io u s b o d ies o r o th e r o rg a n iza tio n s w o u ld be af f ect ed i n t hi s m att er . I ti s al s o emi nent l y cl earthatH as t i ngs , T or i ’ s pr i m ary cus t odi al p a re n t, d id n o t co n se n t t o T o ri’s b u ria l in M iss iss ip p i. F in a lly , the C o u rt c o n sid e re d th e fifth f act or , the r i ght s and f

eel i ngs of

thos e ent i t l ed t o be hea r d by r eas on of r el at i ons hi p. ¶1 5 . O n ly o n e v o ice w as h ea rd at th e h ea ri n g on th is ca se, th at of C arm en H asti n g s. S p iers
w as notpr es entatthe hea r i ng, buthe w as r epr es ent ed by co un sel
. T he maj or i ty of H as t i ngs ’ s t es t i m ony de s cr i bed T or i ’ s connec t i on t o W i chi t a Fal l s , T exas . T hatt es t i m ony

### 7

i s undi s put ed. T or i w as born i n W i chi t a Fal l s and s pentherent i r e l i f e ther e. She att ended the s ame sc hool i n W i chi t a Fal l s f r om ki nder gart en thr ough f ourth gr ade, and butf

orher tr agi c ac ci dent , w ou l d have e nt er ed the f i f th gr ade a tthats ame sc hool i n the f al l of 2005. T or i w as very acti ve i n extr acurr i cul aract i vi t i es athers chool , i ncl udi ng or gani zi ng f und
r ai s er s and pl ayi ng on the vol l eybal l t eam. She w as apopul arl i tt l e gi r l w ho l oved t o s pend t i m e w i th h er f

am i l y an d h er m any fr i end s i n W i chit a F al l s. ¶16. Som e of

H as t i ngs ’ s t es t i m ony al s o addr es s ed T or i ’ s connect i on t o S pi er s . D ur i ng the earl y p artof T ori ’s l i fe, Sp i ers di d n ot s pen d m uch t i m e w i th T ori
. W hil e S pier s’ s parent s, V ick ie a n d Jim m y , p u t f o rth g re a t ef

fo rt to v isit T o ri in T e x a s, S p ier s h im se lf d id n o t v isit of t en. A s T or i gotol derand w as abl e t o st ay aw ay f r om hom e f

orl ongerper i ods of

t i m e, s he
w o u ld v isit th e S p ier s fa m ily in M iss iss ip p i. S h e e v e n tu a lly b e g a n sp e n d in g a ro u n d six
w e e k s o u t o f e v e ry s u m m e r w ith th e S p ier s fa m ily . M o st o fte n , T o ri w o u ld sp e n d th o se six
w eeks w i th the Spi er s f

ami l y on tr i ps t o the mount ai ns i n T ennes s ee. H as t i ngs admi tt ed that T o ri l o v e d the S p ier s fa m ily , in c lu d in g h e r fa th e r, an d re a lly e n jo y e d a n d lo o k e d fo rw a rd to the ti m e that s he spen tw i th them du ri ng the sum m ers . ¶17. A t the end of her di r ect t es t i m ony, H as t i ngs m ade a pl ea t o the court s ayi ng, “I w ant
m y daught erhom e. ” Sh e co nti nued by s ayi ng that“[ h] erf r i ends , herf

ami l y, everythi ng
a b o u t T o ri is in W ich ita F a lls.” A s H a stin g s w a s in th e h o sp ital a t th e tim e o f T o ri’s f u n e ra l,
s he s t at ed, “I di dn’ tgett o pi ck w hatshe w as w ear i ng. I di dn’ tgett o m ake thos e dec i s i ons thatI s houl d ha ve gott en t o make. W hen i tc ame dow n t o i t , I di dn’ tgett o m ake the dec i s i on
w h e re s h e w a s la id to re s t. I n e e d h e r – I n e e d h e r h o m e .”

### 8

¶ 1 8
. In its w ritten o rd e r, th e trial c o u rt re c o g n ize d th a t “ h a d [H a stin g s] n o t b e e n se v e re ly i nj ur ed i n t he ai rpl ane c r as h her s el f and f i ght i ng f orherow n l i f

e atthe t i m e of

the
a rra n g em en ts f

o r he r da u g h ter’s bu ri al, sh e w o u ld h av e su rely h ad h er d au g h ter bu ri ed in W ichita F all s, T ex as.” T h o u g h H asti n g s w as se v ere ly injure d , sh e sti ll p rotested T o ri ’s M i s s i s s i ppi bur i al
. T he tr i al re cor d s how s that , af t ers even a nd a hal f

hour s of r econs truct i ve
su rg e ry o n h e r f

a c e , a v e ry s w o llen H a stin g s m a n a g e d to h o ld o n e e y e o p e n so th a t sh e c o u ld
r ead, si gn, and w r i t e hers oci al s ecur i ty num beron a s t at ementaverr i ng thats he w as
c o m p e ten t to m a k e a d e c isio n as to T o ri’s b u ria l an d th a t sh e w a n ted h e r b u rie d in W ich ita F al l s, T exas. ¶1 9
. T h e trial c o u rtad m itted se v era l ti m es tha t the o n ly reaso n T o ri w as n o t b u rie d in W i chi t a Fal l s w as thatherm otherw as i nj ur ed. I n f act , t he t ri al co urtdi d notm ake a ny f i ndi ng atal l underthe Hood fact or s thatw oul d j us t i f y denyi ng H as t i ngs ’ s r eques t . T he
co u rtsaid o n ly th at “[ i] t is full y un d erstan d ab le th at M rs. H asti n g s w o u ld w an t he r c h ild bur i ed cl os e t o h e rho me, f a mi l y a nd f

r i e nd s . H oweve r , tha tde s i r e a nd the c omf ortand
conven i ence thatw oul d br i ng t o M r s . H as t i ngs and thos e w ho dear l y l oved Tori i n T exas does notamountt o a compel l i ng r eas on t o gr antthe r el i ef r eques t ed. ” W e di s agr ee. ¶20. M i s s i s s i ppi has no pr ece dent di r ect l y on poi nt , but i t i s no t un prec edent ed t o al l ow d isin ter m e n t o f a b o d y s o th a t th o se c lo se st in k in sh ip to th e d e c e a se d c a n m o re e a sily v isit th e g ra v e . See Mal

len v. Mal

len , 520 S. W . 2d 736 ( T enn. Ct
. A pp. 1974) ( di s i nt erm entand reloc a tion o f hu sb an d ’s bo d y from fam il y p lot all o w ed d u e to h o sti li ty b etw ee n h u sb an d ’s fa m ily a n d w id o w ); see al so B ra dley v. B u rg is , 25 So. 2d 753 ( L a. A pp. 1946) ( w i dow
a llo w e d to d isin tera n d m o v e h u sb a n d ’s b o d y b e c a u se it h a d b e c o m e im p o ss ib le f o r h e r to

### 9

vi s i thi s gr ave w i thoutbei ng c onf r ont ed w i th hos t i l i ty)
. W hi l e ther e i s no evi dence of any hos t i l i ty t ow ar ds H as t i ngs w hen s he has vi s i t ed Tori ’ s gr ave, i ti s obvi ous l y di f f i cul tf orher t o vi s i tgi ven the di s t ance betw een W i chi t a Fal l s , T exas , and Li berty, M i s s i s s i ppi
. H as t i ngs even t es t i f

i ed that“as herm other , ” i tw as herpl ace t o bri ng f l ow er s t o T or i ’ s gr ave, and that
s he w as unabl e t o do s o, gi ven the s i tuat i on. ¶21. I n Hood , thi s C ou rtm ade cl ear that M i s s i s s i ppi adopt ed “no r i gi d rul e f or ei ther perm i tt i ng orr ef

us i ng r emoval of

a body once i nt err ed. ” Hood , 357 So. 2d at137. I ns t ead, “ea ch ca s e mustbe det erm i ned on i t s ow n m er i t s w i th due r egar d” t o the f act or s pr es cr i bed fo r c o n s id e ra tio n . I

d. T h e o n l y two f

a c t o r s f r o m Hood

t hatactual l y appl y t o t hi s cas e w ei gh h e a v ily in fa v o r o f H a stin g s. H a stin g s d id n o t c o n se n t to T o ri’s b u ria l in M iss iss ip p i, an d in f act , adamant l y oppos ed thatbur i al
. T he “r i ghtt o be hear d by r eas on of r el at i ons hi p” f act or al s o w ei ghs i n H as t i ngs ’ s f avoras s he w as the o n ly o n e h ea rd in this m att er. T ak en tog ethe r, H as t i ngs ’ s t es t i m ony, T or i ’ s connec t i on t o W i chi t a Fal l s and herl ack of any s ubs t ant i al
co n n ec ti o n to the S tat e o f M issi ssipp i, an d the tri al jud g e’s o w n rep ea ted ad m issi o n that T o ri
w ou l d h a ve be e n b ur i e d i n W i c hi t a Fa l l s i f no tf orH a s t i ng s ’ s s e r i ou s i nj ur i e s i n the pl ane
cras h, al l com pel a deci sion tha tT ori ’s bo dy be d i si nterred and m ov ed to W i chit a F al l s. C ons i der i ng the t ot al i ty of the r ecor d, w e ar e unabl e t o s ay thatthe court ’ s deci s i on w as
s upport ed by s ubs t ant i al cr edi bl e evi dence
. T o the contr ary, the onl y evi dence i n thi s s ad
r ecor d s upport s H as t i ngs ’ s pet i t i on. CO NC L US I ON

### 10

¶2 2. G i ven the f

act s of t hi s cas e and the r eco r d be f or e thi s Court , w e ca nnot f i nd
su b stan ti al cred ible ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe tri al c o u rt ’s ru li n g . T h ere fore , the tri al co u rt ’s deni al of H as t i ngs ’ s pet i t i on t o di s i nt erT or i ’ s re m ai ns and m ove them t o T exas i s r ever s ed. ¶23. RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D.

S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND DI AZ , P . J J . , CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND RANDOL P H, J J . , CONCUR. EAS LE Y AND GRA VE S , J J . , DI S S EN T W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.