*1 Proposed of Fred In re Disinterment J. Jarvis.
No. 48247. 24) (Reported in 58 N.W.2d *2 April 8, 1953. Rehearing 12, Denied June 1953. Davis, Oskaloosa, appellant.
Life & for Cless, Moines, & Lehmann, Hurlburt, Blanchard of Des appellee pro se. Attorneys representing Mutual Health Benefit Gareield, J. (herein company”)
and Accident Association called “the filed County application in the district court of Mahaska under sec- 141.25, Code, tions order for disinterment 141.22 holding dead of Dr. Fred Jarvis for J. by an autopsy. The was resisted Doctor Jarvis’s hearing by applicant widow. After evidence offered both granted resister the district court and Mrs. Jarvis appealed has to us. physician, age injured
Decedent, a retired in an was January right leg automobile accident His was 1952. knee, right arm and broken at the his shoulder and the side perhaps injured. of his chest bruised and were otherwise The following day hospital was taken a City he in Iowa he where January 24. That p.m., died at 12:47 afternoon his by to Oskaloosa where was embalmed returned licensed early or evening. late afternoon embalmer He was buried January beneficiary policies in two accident insurance
The widow $12,250. policy amount One for a total was issued by it. represented applicant, the other assumed company life, policy against insures The loss Doctor Jarvis’s former directly and оf all sight resulting independently or time limb, injuries acci- bodily through purely from other causes sustained policy generally Terms of the other similar. dental means. Steindler, Dr. certificate death made Arthur The gives condi- attending physician, hemorrhage” “cerebral as the leading gives death no ante- directly to Doctor Jarvis’s tion signed Doctor statement, part causes. Steindler’s cedent furnished the “cere- beneficiary’s proof company, claim states primáry death, and accident” was the cause of brovascular “pneumonitis” secondary contribnting was the cause. equivalent hemorrhage is the term substantial cerebral former injury. mean a another traumatic Pneumonitis is does *3 pneumonia. name for beneficiary company
The contends and the denies death 16, policies. meaning within the of the On June accidental company against in the commenced action Mrs. Jarvis liability asking District Court Ottumwa its United States at that beneficiary’s policies rights under the be declared and the company In this is liable adjudged. action the contends disability only for accidental benefits and not for insured’s death. application for disinterment was Mrs. pending
While this against company action in the district Jarvis commenced of the County Mahaska recover full amount court of trаns- policies husband’s death. action was on account of her This court consolidated with to the United States ferred The company. consolidated causes commenced action there the disinterment undisposed when remained in September and decided heard 141.22, 1950, states: for Code, “Disinterment
Section human person shall disinter dead of a autopsy. No holding purpose autopsy thereon in order being for the obtaining pur- without the canse of death for to determine pose either:
“1. An in county order the district court of tbe which buried, or special permit department “2. A from the state health.” provides:- “Application Section 141.24 for court order. An a pur- for court order for a disinterment for pose holding attorney, county made coroner, any attorney representing party or criminal * * proceedings. or civil *.” “Granting application. applica-
Section 141.25 states: No for for permit holding tion a to disinter an au- * * topsy granted except shall be under circumstances such as criminally civilly to cause or the belief that someone liable for proper showing death. A shall in every be made case and public due consideration shall health, dead, * * feelings of and the rеlatives friends. *.” Tow, In re Disinterment of Iowa 53 N.W.2d proceeding us, like now before considers these statutes and holds a proceeding our review such is not de novo but is rather the nature of certiorari.” “somewhat Pursuant appellant, this Tow counsel for Mrs. decision Jarvis, conceded upon appeal submission of it is not reviewable de novo and competent if there is to support evidence the trial court’s find they us. ings upon are conclusive Tow (at case holds also Iowa, page page N.W.2d) 700 of 243 of 53 : “It is sufficient to show there is reasonable likelihood that an would negative confirm claim insurer-applicant.” either The cited case affirms an although order disinterment some questions were raised the widow which we do not have here.
I. The court found trial there is reasonable likelihood autopsy an would determine the thereby cause of death and negative respective confirm or claims of litigants. Ap pellant argues proper showing substance was made that finding. think, however, warrants this We there is substantial support finding evidence and it is therefore conclusive upon us.
Appellee testimony offered the of Birge Doctor of Des Moines, experience.' a pathologist of Appellant wide offered the Ottumwa, apparently younger Phelps of Doctor evidence testimony sixty of each experienced. The witness fills some less attempt shall not it. It pages of record. We to review Birge reasonably probable autopsy apparent Doctor feels it is an the condition that caused would disclose decedent’s cerebral hemorrhage. In so than once. effect he testifies more Phelps expresses an opinion autopsy would not
Doctor “I very the cause of death. doubt probability in all establish seriously autopsy at time would be conclusive.” that embalming admits in that if However, Phelps Doctor effect probably adequate would reveal one of hemorrhage recognized causes of cerebral such as brain several arteriosclerosis, injury and traumatic brain. He tumor, autopsies very frequently per- that admits in substance also determining the cause of death formed says die under somewhat similar circumstances and persons who autopsy upon have an who dies it would advisable to one hemorrhage symptoms present. clinical with no from cerebral Phelps of his cross-examination Doctor concludes the end Neаr possible definitely could show the cause very isit death. argument as to claimed lack of appellant’s
Much finding support the trial court’s is based on some evidence undertaker did who the embalm- cross-examination by appellee on direct examination that he is a ing. testifies He procedure and followed the usual of embalm- embalmer licensed says part Doctor cross-examination he Jarvis’s ing here. On * * * I I good. what would call real wouldn’t wasn’t “circulation job.” embalming adds good He that deterioration had a say we rapid would be more than decomposition of if there embalming job. good awas testifies on redirect examination
However, the undertaker embalming artery fluid was inserted into the carotid way he directly knowing has no serves the.brain which job embalming satisfactory done in the brain. Phelps say testifies witness Doctor he would not Appellant’s leg would obstruct fracture circulation of the Jarvis’s Doctor require only entering embalming fluid—it would the blood ves- *5 1030 beyond place. says
seis tbe fractured He also would be question no through reason the circulation brain of embalming artery. fluid inserted into the carotid unnecessary.
We deem further discussion of the evidence Appellant application II. appellee’s contends should have been it is denied because said to be and not unreasonable seasonably made. The contention cannot be sustained under circumstances here. argument
There are com- appellant’s several answers to pany autopsy should pol- have asked an before burial. The icies are not gives before us. is no policy There evidence either any the company any to an at time. It seems apparent any request company for an would probably granted. not Appellant have been did furnish the not company a claim for acсidental death until about benefits Febru- ary 22, (burial January .28). onwas So far this as shown claim is company the first information the had death was hemorrhage. caused cerebral then Before there was no reason company for the to doubt that death was accidental and hence no an autopsy. reason to seek application
This was filed under Code sections 141.22 et seq. Unless county attorney is made only by “attorney coroner it be made representing party criminal or proceedings.” (Section 141.24.) civil apparent It is from these and In statutes re Disinterment of Tow, supra, 243 Iowa 53 N.W.2d procеedings that the referred to are those which involve the cause death. Such proceedings frequently not commenced until at least some little time after death. such proceeding
Here no was started until company com- menced its action the federal court on June 1952. Before representing then company one apply entitled to for' a order for Appellant court disinterment. commenced no after, against company action until was filed July 8. This application was set for hearing July but appellee get was unable to upon service of appellant notice because her from jurisdiction, absence hearing held September until 10 and 11. The matter was promptly decided. *6 appeal justices After to tbis court, stay- tbe one of tbe issued a order on appellee Any delay October 13 which resisted. occurred application charge- after tbis was filed seems to be appellee. able to principal
One resisting of tbe reasons for application is, in appellant’s words, just “I autopsy. don’t like tbe idea” of an Tbis objection, understandable, wbicb is of course would seem stronger to have no appeal application than if tbe bad been earlier. In supra, 695, re Disinterment of Tow, filed 243 Iowa 283, 53 N.W.2d considers an for disinterment filed about three months after death where promptly tbe widow bad eiyil commenced what proceeding involving we there bold was a previously tbe cause of death. As stated we affirmed tbe order for disinterment.
Our fix filing statutes no time limit for an application. We should not into tbe Conceding write one statutes here. right to a by court order for disinterment be lost unreason- delay applying it, able for basis insufficient for re- versing ground delay tbis order on tbe there was such here. public
Tbe policy of tbis state in tbe disinter matter of legislature ment has been declared tbe above statutes and it is our find to take them as we them. State v. See Bruntlett, 338, 355, 356, 240 Iowa 450, (“Tbe 36 N.W.2d 460 legislature, public policy and not tbis declares the court, * * * tbis state. We both law are limited and conscience judicial faithfully applying tbe interpreting function of and tbe law it.”); as we find Vilas v. Board Assessment Re and view, 620, 338; Rapids, Iowa 604, 223 273 N.W. Brutsche v. Coon 502, 487, 501, 223 624; Kuhn, Iowa 272 Kuhn v. 125 Iowa N.W. 453, 2 449, 151, 657; Jur., 101 N.W. Ann. Cas. 11 Am. Consti * * Law, 139, page (“* tutional 815 has section tbe rule become securely questions policy determina settled all áre for tbe legislature, courts.”); S., tion of tbe C. and not for tbe 16 J. Law, 154, page Constitutional section Appellant Co., Iowa cites Robertson v. Mutual Life Ins. 232 743, 755-757, & 153, 159, 160; 6 N.W.2d States F. G. United 548, v. Hood, 605, Co. Miss. A. L. R. 87 So. 15 614; annotation Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New McCulloch v. 984; L. R. 866; annotation 88 A. York, Cir., Va., 109 F.2d W. proposition for tbe Insurance, Jur., 29 Am. sections seasonably autopsy must be reasonable for an demand like authorities. carefully considered these made. We have they have little but We find fault with them here. policy provisions consider
The cited authorities liability policy be- on the sought to avoid autopsy where refusal, request autopsy. for an grant the insurer’s cause of against the strongly provisions construed most policy Such policy is forfeited refusal hold a insurer, arе slow to courts reject contention such a autopsy and to an sometimes consent *7 or autopsy was unreasonable ground demand for the on the seasonably made. provides pathologist order III. The trial court’s organs parts “may or autopsy remove such performs who * ** effectively required to organs body may as of from the organs parts however, or provided, such perform autopsy, portions as only such organs removed, except of so thereof examination, microscopic shall necessary subjected to to be body prior to reburial.” place in the be restored to their normal party chapter authorize a 141 does not Appellant contends only body. of The any organ part a to and retain remove contention to this could be vulnerable portion of order which if Birge testifies he were Doctor is that italicized us. the brain' purpose to shave autopsy be his perform the it would microscopic examina- for of tissue keep and also to some slivers have italicized order we making part tion. In testimony. evidently in mind this had trial court provision is that it italicized appellee All for the claims shavings or replace any pathologist from rеlieves the subject microscopic examination. necessary of tissue slivers court’s however, the trial regard, in this To remove doubt quoted striking the above therefrom hereby is order modified only “except thereof: language inserting in lieu and italicized subject necessary to may be shavings as or such slivers tissue microscopic examination.” seq. 141.22 et proper. Code sections The rest of the order death. the cause of provide autopsy in order to determine “Autopsy” recognized meaning. has a Webster’s New Interna- Ed., Dictionary, “Inspection, tional Second it as and defines dissection, usually partial a opened of dead which has been bpdy n expose important organs so as to either to ascertain cause death, or, known, if this is the exact nature and extent disease, present; the lesions of the and other abnormalities * * « » Boyd, 354, 359, Painter Fertilizer Co. v. 93 Fla. 114 So. “An states, autopsy post-mortem is a a examination, dissection of a the cause, dead to determine seat or nature ** S., disease; page 1298, says C. J. “An of a examination dead dissection, to ascertain the ** death; cause of #.” Birge testimony of both Phelps Doctors indicates recognized meaning among has a pathologists and replacement includes organs partial removal and at least reasonably necessary if dissection thereof to ascertain the cause recog- death. The order here as above modified is within the definitions, láy, legal medical, nized of autopsy. Ackley,
Winkler 474, 477, v. Hawkes & 126 Iowa 478, 102 418, 419, support N.W. tends to our conclusion. We held post-mortem widow’s consent to a examination for the of ascertaining implies permission cause death “a to the surgeons to conduct such approved examination in the and usual practiced by manner profession; and, their if the removal *8 organs microscopic necessary some of the examination was or proper to post-mortem, effect the of the then the guilty defendants would not of an wrong be in actionable so * * permission doing, unless expressly such withheld Co., supra, 743, Robertson Mutual Ins. v. Life 232 Iowa 757-759, 153, 159, 160, appellant, N.W.2d is cited not point. sought liability There insurer policy the to avoid on the widow-beneficiary’s because the refusal of demand for its body an to permission and from to remove the “and organ organs retain such or portions other of the as necessary.” policy be to not We held defense the good because the dеmand exceeded the was unreasonable and policy provision apparent for an It demand autopsy. is And, pre- much further than court’s order here. as
went
the
viously explained,
policy
with
we are
now concerned
against
strongly
most
insurer.
provision construed
support
complaint
appellant’s
IV.
does not
The record
give
regard
feelings
trial court did not
due
family
public
and friends and the
health.
141.25, above-quoted, requires that
con-
“due
Code section
dead,
health,
and the
public
to the
sideration shall
indication it will
feelings
and friends.” There is no
of relatives
carry
the trial court’s
adversеly
public health to
out
affect the
feelings
carefully
evidently
very
considered
order. The court
naturally
to have
reluctant
of relatives and friends who
of Law state:
Its Conclusions
decedent’s
disinterred.
“* * *
feeling
very natural
not unmindful of the
the Court is
tives
abhorrence
[*]
* *
to the
that exists in
proposed
the minds of
disinterment and
widow
autopsy, but
and rela-
overriding
is
and
present there
circumstances such as here
quest
is
the law
ever
overpowering consideration. The
provided
very truth,
a means is
which
and where
ascertain
feelings and
reasonably
quest,
aid in such
calculated to
they
justifiable
individual,
sincere and
sentiments of the
however
interposed to
of the
may be,
defeat the ascertainment
cannot .be
feelings
to the
given due consideration
truth. The Court has
against a
reluctance
and as
natural
of the widow and relatives
sanctity
has
quiet
grave,
of the
part
its
disturb
and
on
legal
of ‘a sound
compelled to
that the exercise
been
conclude
requires granting
application.”
discretion’
Tow,
695, 700,
supra,
243 Iowa
In re Disinterment
sentiments
“the universal
N.W.2d
considers
holds,
statute
their
“Our
of mankind
dead”
feelings
as
legislature
which our
within
carefully
has
defined the limits
** *
result
disregarded.
thought
should
those sentiments
broaden rather
its effect
advantage
has
reached
death —a
the cause of
as to
narrow the
for truth
than
search
bearing possible facts
tendency
rather than conceal
to reveal
rights
parties.”
respective
for disinterment
orders
In
instances court
some
upheld
have been
statutory authorization,
autopsy, even without
*9
1035
they
where
are essential to the demands of justice, notwith
“* * *
standing objections
relatives,
right
to have the
* * *
absolute,
yield
remain undisturbed
and must
* * *
justice require
the demands of
where
such subordination.”
4b, page
S.,
Bodies,
Kusky
25 C. J.
Dead
section
1023. See also
286,
v.
96 N.
74 A.2d
21 A.
Laderbush,
546,
H.
L. R.2d 536
(where
deny
litigant’s
it
held
unreasonable
motiоn for
safeguards),
proper
538; Gray
under
and annotation
State,
v.
22
App. 90,
A.,
S.,
Tex. Cr.
114 S.W.
L. R.
N.
635,
513, 521;
Co.,
301,
Painter v.
F. &
91 A.
United States
G.
123 Md.
655,
158, 160;
Brown,
37,
40;
Ullendorff v.
156 Fla.
So.2d
Mutual
Griesa,
C., Kan.,
Life Insurance Co.
York v.
New
C.
Wigmore Evidence, Ed., pages Third section 210, 211, a corpse, states: “The exhumation or the when useful to litigation, ascertain facts in should of course performed. memory Reverence for those who have departed require high doing does not us to abdicate the ** justice living Id., to the See also section 2216(d), page Idem, 2221, page note section 210, and the addi- Supplement tions thereto in the 1951 Pocket summarize decisions right autopsy. and statutes on the to an Appellant’s remaining largely claim of error is a combina- requires tion of previously those and no further considered dis- cussion.
We hold the trial in III court’s order as modified Division respect urged appellant. hereof is not erroneous As so modified it is and affirmed.—Modified affirmed. J., JJ., C.
SMITH, Bliss, Larson, Wennerstrum concur. JJ., dissent.
Thompson, Oliver, Mulroney, Hays, persuaded (dissenting) being J. Thompson, —Not majority soundness of I opinion, respectfully dissent there- upheld Tow, from. We Basil disinterment J. only 243 Iowa Although N.W.2d 283. a minimum ma- jority five—joined must be opinion, court— recognized state, as the it applies. settled law the so far as
1036 me, issue to а vital and, a different it seems But
I. there in the Tow not decided at bar which was in the case present application for dis- that the here contends appellant case. reasonably seasonably or was and for interment on January died injured 20; on he was Doctor Jarvis made. he died January 28. Before was buried on January 24, and & Accident Mutual Benefit Health office of the Des Moines for disinterment Nebraska, applicant Omaha, Association n agent accident, and its Oskaloosa of the herein, was advised for acci- January loss, 25. Proof of with claim notified of death showing primary cause death benefits dental February furnished the insurer on hemorrhage, was cerebral as a on June court was commenced in the federal 22. Its action July 8. These for disinterment on application nest, and this question reasonableness and upon the of the important dates application. of the seasonableness majority insurer excuses the ways which One of the for an is that prompt application a failing make proof loss [appellant’s claim far as shown this “so op company information February is the first company 22] hemorrhage.” But cerebral was caused had that death Jarvis, Doctor and that death of company did know the Surely it had following an automobile accident. had occurred investigation. similar own Under obligation to make its Appeals said in Wehle v. York Court of New circumstances the City Association of the of New Mutual Accident States United Rep. 60 Am. St. 116, 122, 47 N.E. York, N. Y. 599: impose giving immediate notice was to
“The effect of the immediately obligation upon to make the defendant it to whether occurrence, as to enable decide investigation of the body in order upon to an examination insist its liberty not at satisfy the death. It was itself to the cause of as length of time.” or for unreasonаble indefinitely, wait urged the insurer should It it cannot be here that is true that permits application burial. Our statute have made its before the proceeding pending, applications only these when there is develop litigation before hardly expected it can will dead .grave. But, insurer-applicant man is in if tbe bis even investigate proceed bere bad been under until or to it bad there was a been advised some outside source question knowledge on death, as to tbe it bad such cause February until It did not file its for disinterment July S', some four and months later. Of course it one-half contended that it could not file until its pend- a proceeding pending. “proceeding” Tbe which was *11 ing finally application when it filed was its own in federal its suit any fairly court. be might This it have filed at time. Can it nonliability withholding said that its suit to establish its on policy, thereby filing the it its time for a reasonable extended question self-answering. for disinterment? The is Under the authorities it the of the insurer to make timely application. A waiting period of over five months from of the date of death and over four months from the time knowledge possible beyond of a defense seems to me to be reason in this class cases. says right majority
The the cases which hold the is lost delay point proceeding not in undue are because the insurer was right claiming Iowa than the under the statute rather provision distinguish under a I am the policy. of its unable reasoning authorities, principle. of these The disinterment of permitting may a dead for the someone who be possible for death to if a is liable the determine defense exists at for abhorrent at time. There is least as much to be said rights him the insurer whose are based on contract as for whose statutory. disinterment is majority says filing the no for statute fixes time the application, and we not into it. said in should write one It is Assn., supra, page States Acc. 122 of 153 Wehle v. United Mutuаl N.Y., page provision, 37 though not, of 47 N.E.: “The as before observed, nature, which, of an unreasonable nevertheless was one part things, prompt fob on the nature called action Although specified the insurer. time is within which regard permission may of, still, he a due exatnine availed deceased, family if1 sentiments friends of option public policy, required as immediate an exercise possible.” (Italics ours.) quoted examine with as was This approval York, in McCulloch v. Mutual Life Ins. of New Co. F.2d Cir., Va.,W. permit applicant the insurer or other
If it is abhorrent may be aided a disinterment who conceives that his lawsuit many filing request, before his and if it is to wait for months request be within a reasonable the law that such should made why time, I it matters whether he bases his claim do not see provision upon upon policy a in a of insurance or a statute. Sec- majority opinion, 141.25, tion set out concludes with this: proper showing every “A made in case due consider- shall health, public dead, ation shall be to the and the feel- ings majority suggests -friends.” The relatives and feelings perhaps same, will of the relatives and friends be the delayed. long no matter when is made or how is It relatives, friends, apt be conceded that no to like of a idea disintermеnt and dissection of the aof time; one, forth, loved at but the authorities above set many others, particularly hold that it ap- is abhorrent when the plication long delayed.
Especially delay may is this true when the reasons for the suspect. pleaded by resister, It widow, Doctor Jarvis’s that during elapsed time after his death and the date *12 filing of of application, negotiations the for settlement were way. alleged, under It denied, is and not that the insurer offered sum the of $9000 settlement of claim policies, the under its under beneficiary which the $12,250. Quite evidently claimed it was not until it had failed to effect a settlement at a substan- tial reduction from policies the face of it the that to resorted the majority disinterment statutes. As says, the the do statutes not fix any time within which the should be made. IYet do think legislature not the intended their use should be only resorted unnecessary delay to after and after efforts to secure a reduction in liability put have failed. The construction upon the majority opens statutes the the door to their use by those claimed to be “liable for the death” as a club to force a favorable family settlement. No the dislike of the one doubts for the cutting-up disinterment and of the of a loved one. is, It best, ghоulish at proceeding-which should be tolerated only when it is promptly, resorted to it from when is free taint of improper use purposes, settlement and when the ends I think a justice clearly proper of it. interpretation demand of of our statutes and consideration the authorities show that all required of these should be elements before order of disinter- majority right may ment is made. The concedes the be lost think delay; delay appears undue I here. adopted
II. Under the rule in the Tow case we not permitted findings to of court, review the fact made the trial if support there is substantial to them. Yet can- evidence I upon commenting disregard not refrain from the evident of part requires that of the which statute that “due consideration * * * given shall dead, feelings of relatives True, and friends.” the trial paid lip court service to this “feel- ing abhorrence”, of but found that “an overpowering there was overriding consideration.” This consideration was the claim of applicant-insurer might expected that an show cause death. “feelings”
It is not a where the parties, case their victory, depression elation at defeat, their their like or dis- case, disregarded like the outcome of the must be by the cоurt. Ordinarily duty put is of the court aside all consider- ation of according these and to decide the matters ease to the law and the evidence. But here feelings” “consideration of the of the family part and friends of the dead is amáde of the It statute. is the court’s them take into account. gave
It is court weight evident the substantial feelings family; they weighed of the at against all as applicant bearing need to find some evidence on the cause I suggest part death. of the requires statute which due feelings consideration be to the dead fully important relatives and friends as as the commerciаl aspects problem, only strongest showing and that necessity should “override” it. If, majority opinion
III. however, as the permits, of Doctor I disinterred, Jarvis is to be think the extent of enough strictly only is still not limited. The evidence of a other than cause death the accident found in the death *13 hemorrhage primary certificate which lists cerebral as the cause. Birge, pathologist Dr. R. F. the chief who was the witness for question: company, the asked this body matter of Dr. Jarvis’s cranial upon tbe autopsy “If an would further condition any pathological reveal would fail to to find techniques be recommended post-mortеm exploratory He answered: of death?” out the cause an the to make examination pathologist is asked “If the restrict it is best not to death body determine cause to facts, if he to have all is He needs the examination. In of death. this probable cause case give opinion as to an hemorrhage in Jarvis, no were found suppose that of Dr. pathologist to task for a look else- be the brain it would then if do so to find out permitted the order to if where he were important related the acci- are other conditions either there condition, might exist. Iic-art the accident dent оr unrelated to of that sort.” pulmonary arteries, something an to the embolism asking here, gave is and what the court the doctor AVhat go through body. insurer the entire him, is blanche The carte certificate, evidence, through the death there is some claims hemorrhage cerebral unrelated that death was caused probable cause There no evidence other accident. goes is showing far as record death; is, so here hemorrhage as except and the brain negative for the accident York, Life Co. of New Mutual Ins. In McCulloch v. causes. * “* * F.2d, court said: two con supra, page 869 of 109 * [*] ditions * secondly, at least must concur it must be reasonably justify certain that an after an examina burial. bearing rights on the something will reveal tion of the be discovered.” Measured could otherwise parties which nothing justify which would yardstick, there here than on brain. body of Doctor other Jarvis they do not have contend applicant and its doctor hemor any cause of other than the cerebral death evidence parts necessary to other examine rhage, or that it is Birge’s testimony I he searching As read Doctor therefor. brain, nothing in the to be wishes, if he can find organs what a vital to see through and dissect other to hunt sustain might There is evidence to search disclose. I autopsy. would reverse. extension JJ., join this dissent. Mulroney IIays, Oliver,