Opinion ID: 1757822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the state medical examiner or the county medical examiner has unfettered discretion in ordering an autopsy.

Text: ¶ 4. Hopson contends that the county medical examiner should not be allowed unfettered discretion in ordering autopsies, and that the chancery court therefore erred in refusing to hear Hopson's case. Family members or others who disagree with the medical examiner's determination [to order an autopsy] shall be able to petition and present written argument to the State Medical Examiner for further review. If the petitioner still disagrees, he may petition the circuit court which may, in its discretion, hold a formal hearing. Miss.Code Ann. § 41-61-65(3) (1993). The trial court within its discretion could hold a formal hearing on the matter or, as in this case, issue an order denying the requested relief. ¶ 5. The county medical examiner has the duty of ordering an autopsy in any case in which it is advisable and in the public interest that an autopsy or other study be made for the purpose of determining the primary and/or contributing cause of death... Miss.Code Ann. §§ 41-61-53(f), 41-61-65(1) (1993). `Death affecting the public interest' means any death of a human being where the circumstances are sudden, unexpected, violent, suspicious or unattended. Miss.Code Ann. § 41-61-53(e) (1993). More specifically, the Mississippi Legislature has classified [v]iolent death, including homicidal, suicidal or accidental death as a death affecting the public interest. Miss.Code Ann. § 41-61-59(2)(a) (1993). Bryan's death in the June 10, 1997, car wreck was a sudden, accidental death. As such, County Medical Examiner Scotty Meredith properly ordered an autopsy on Bryan's body. An autopsy was also appropriate due to the public interest in prosecuting Reed for the felony charge against him arising out of the accident. Meredith's decision was not based upon unfetterred discretion, but was governed by Mississippi statutory law. Considering the facts and controlling law in this case, we find that the chancery court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold a formal hearing on Hopson's petition or in denying the requested relief.