IN QU EST. A body of men appointed by law to inquire into certain matters: as, the inquest examined into the facts connected with the alleged murder. The grand jury is sometimes called the grand inquest.
The judicial inquiry itself by a jury sum moned for the purpose, is called an inquest. The finding of such men, upon an investiga tion, is also called an inquest, or an inquisi tion.
The most familiar use of the word is to designate the inquiry by a coroner (q. v.) in to the causes of death, whether sudden, vio lent, or in prison. To justify an inquest it is not necessary that a death should be both sudden and violent ; either is sufficient ; Lan caster County v. Dern, 2 Grant (Pa.) 262. The authority to hold an inquest extends to bodies brought into the county ; People v. Fitzgerald, 105 N. Y. 146, 11 N. E. 378, 59 Am. Rep. 483 ; and when a person died in one county and was buried in another it was held that the inquest should be held by the coroner of the latter. After the verdict is returned the duty is completed and a second inquest cannot be held unless the first is quashed by a competent court ; 3 El. & El. 137. No inquest can be held in any case ex cept upon view of the body ; this is jurisdic tional and can be waived by no one ; 3 B. & A. 260 ; if buried it may be exhumed, but must be reburied ; 2 Hawk. P. C. 77. A post mortem examination may be ordered ; Alle gheny County v. Watt, 3 Pa. 462 ; but it should not be made before the jury have viewed the body ; 1 Witth. & Beck. Med. Jur. 336 ; nor should it be in the presence of the jury, but they are to be instructed by the testimony of the physicians designated • to make it ; People v. Fitzgerald, 105 N. Y. 146, 11 N. E. 378, 59 Am. Rep. 483.
See DEAD BODY.
In holding an inquest the coroner acts ju dicially ; Com. v. Hawkins, 3 Gray (Mass.) 463 ; People v. Devine, 44 Ca]. 452 ; Bois ]iniere v. Board of County Com'rs, 32 Mo. 375. No person is entitled by reason of being suspected of causing the death, to be present, or to have counsel, or cross-examine the wit nesses or produce others ; 2 Hawk. P. C. 77 ; Crisfield v. Perin, 81 N. Y. 622, affirmed 15 Hun 200. The coroner may select and sum mon the jurors of inquest and fine any who are absent for non-attendance ; Ex parte McAnnully, T. U. P. Char]t. (Ga.) 310 ; they must be sworn ; 3 B. & A. 260 ; and this must appear in the certificate or be proved aliunde; People v. White, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 167; they are the sole arbiters of the facts ; but the coroner may instruct them in the law ; id.; and compel the attendance of wit nesses, for which purpose he has common law powers ; Com. v. Taylor, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 387.
After hearing the evidence the jury should retire to deliberate upon their verdict, with out the presence of the coroner, and, when agreed upon, it should be. put in writing and is final, and the inquisition should be signed by the coroner and jury ; 6 C. & P. 179, 602 ; the jury may sign by marks ; State v. Evans, 27 La. Ann. 297 ; and if several bear the: same Christian and surname they need not be distinguished in the caption by abode or otherwise ; 7 C. & P. 538.
The effect of the inquisition is to author ize the arrest and commitment of the person charged by it, and upon his arrest be may make his own statement and have it return ed with the inquisition, but he cannot be dis charged until his case is passed upon by the grand jury ; People v. Collins, 20 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 111; except of course after hearing by a judge upon habeas corpus.
The testimony of a witness, not charged with crime, • given at the inquest may be used against him, if afterwards accused; he must claim his privilege if he wishes to pro tect himself ; Williams v. Com., 29 Pa. 1d2; Clough v. State, 7 Neb. 320 ; but if at the time of inquest he is in custody on suspicion, be cannot be examined as a mere witness, but only as an accused party in the same manner as if brought before a committing magis trate ; People v. Mondon, 103 N. Y. 211, 8 N. E. 496, 57 Am. Rep. 709 ; the doctrine that silence gives consent does not apply to a coroner's inquest ; People v. Willett, 92 N. Y. 29. These rules were settled by the New York court of appeals as the result of a se ries of cases ; Hendrickson v. People, 10 N. Y. 13, 61 Am. Dec. 721; People v. McMahon, 15 N. Y. 384 ; Teachout v. People, 41 N. Y. 7 ; People v. Mondon, 103 N. Y. 211, 8 N. E. 496, 57 Am. Rep. 709 ; People v. McGloin, 91 N. Y. 241.
Where the accused testifies voluntarily at the coroner's inquest, his evidence may be used against him on his subsequent trial for murder ; Reg. v. Wiggins, 10 Cox C. C. 562. But testimony given by persons suspected of crime cannot be regarded as voluntary, so as to be admissible upon a subsequent trial, if, because of the temper of the community, their refusal to answer questions would al most certainly have resulted in their imme diate arrest; Tuttle v. People, 33 Colo. 243, 79 Pac. 1035, 70 L. R. A. 33, 3 Ann. Cas. 513. For admissibility, on a trial for murder of testimony of accused at coroner's inquest, see note 70 L. R. A. 33.
Preventing a coroner from holding an quest over a dead body, when it is required by law, is indictable ; 13 Q. B. D. 331. Where the captain of a man-of-war, mistaking his legal duty, had prevented the coroner from holding an inquest on the body of a man hanged on his ship, the court, granting an information, refused to proceed also against his boatswain, who had participated in the transaction under his order ; Andr. 231; but, adds Bishop, "an information is in a meas ure discretionary with the court, and per haps on an indictment the boatswain would have been deemed liable ;" 1 Bish. N. Cr. L. § 688 (3).
In Massachusetts there is now no coroner, but an inquest is held in such cases by a jus tice of certain designated courts, after an examination by regular medical examiners and a report that the death was caused by violence, or without such report upon the di rection of the prosecuting officer. See Cos ONES; CONFESSION; ADMISSION.