Court Opinion

ID: 9712719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:58:44.399071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:13.879960
License: Public Domain

HANSON, J.
(dissenting). In my opinion the record does not reflect a violation of defendant’s constitutional privilege against self incrimination. In speaking of a John Doe proceeding this court said that “Every presumption should he indulged in favor of the view that a legitimate use was being made of the statute by the magistrate and prosecuting officers, rather than an illegitimate use; and the burden is on a defendant raising the Constitutional question with reference to his having been subpoenaed and examined as a witness in a John Doe proceeding to show affirmatively that such proceeding at the time he was called, regardless of its. form, was in truth and in fact an investigation ■ of his guilt or innocence.” State v. Smith, 56 S.D. 238, 228 N.W. 240, 251. The court went on to define an unlawful “inquisition” as “any judicial inquiry which has for its primary object the determination of that person’s guilt or innocence of a given offense”. It would seem the same presumption of legality should be accorded to a coroner’s inquest and the same burden of affirmative proof to show otherwise required of one who- challenges the constitutionality of its procedure.
Our law authorizes a coroner to> “hold an inquest upon the dead bodies of such persons only as are supposed to have died by unlawful means”. SDC 1960 Supp. 34.1001. In my opinion there is no proof in this case indicating that *220the coroner’s inquest was not properly convened and fairly conducted for the legitimate purpose of determining whether or not the deceased, Terry Jeremiason, died by unlawful means. The coroner’s verdict of accidental death exonerated defendant from blame. Such verdict would seem to repel any inference ithe inquest was an “inquisition” aimed at defendant.
The majority opinion infers the State’s Attorney and Coroner of Butte County connived together with “studied care * * * to avoid an unconstitutional interrogation of defendant * * * that they were consciously investigating the guilt or innoc'ence of defendant.” Shortly after the accident defendant admitted to three different persons that he drove the car in which Terry was killed. This fact was clearly established at the trial by the undisputed testimony of George Malcolm, George Smith, and Roy Dillavou. Under the circumstances, it does not seem logical to infer the law enforcement officials connived together and contrived an elaborate legal trap to elicit for the fourth time the same admission from defendant.
The record furthermore conclusively shows, in my opinion, that defendant voluntarily testified as a witness at the coroner’s inquest. “A common test of the voluntariness of the testimony before the coroner’s jury has been whether the defendant was under arrest or charged with a crime at the time the testimony was given or whether he testified as a mere witness. Generally the testimony of the defendant before the coroner’s jury has been freely admitted where he was not under arrest or charged with the crime at the time but testified merely as a witness.” 5 A.L.R.2d at page 1447. Defendant was not under arrest or charged with any offense at the time. He did appear at the coroner’s inquest in response to a subpoena but this is not an unusual circumstance. Prospective witnesses are frequently subpoenaed and not called to testify. Defendant was clearly advised by the state’s attorney he was not going to be Called as a witness for the state. Likewise the coroner informed defendant the state was not going to call him as a *221witness and further correctly advised him “you have the right if you so wish on your own behalf to come up and be sworn and testify.”
During the trial of this case the jury had the benefit of seeing defendant and observing his conduct and demean- or. They concluded he was mature enough to be criminally responsible for the death of Terry Jeremiason. In the absence of evidence to the contrary we should assume he was mature and intelligent enough to voluntarily consent to be a witness at the coroner’s inquest after being advised of his rights. Having volunteered to be a witness it was defendant’s obligation, if he so desired,, to claim his privilege against self incrimination. Failing to do so his testimony was properly admitted at the subsequent preliminary hearing and trial. See State v. Mayabb, Mo., 316 S.W.2d 609.
Because defendant was allowed to voluntarily take the stand and testify at the coroner’s inquest his conviction of a serious crime is set aside by the majority opinion and he is immunized against further prosecution for the same offense. Law enforcement officials will be judicially handicuffed by this undue and unrealistic extension of an already harsh rule. Now, it will be necessary for them to take affirmative action to prevent anyone suspected of crime from similarly voluntarily testifying at any preliminary judicial investigation.
I would affirm.