Did a South Carolina coroner have to obey a court order to release a decedent’s biological specimen for a paternity case?

Plain-English summary

The Attorney General concluded that a Richland County coroner had to obey a court order requiring release of a biological specimen from a decedent for paternity testing. The coroner had asked whether the Preservation of Evidence Act justified withholding the specimen and, if so, how to inform the court.

The opinion answered with the rule that a court order must be followed unless reversed, modified, or vacated through proper judicial proceedings. It did not create a separate refusal procedure for the coroner and did not decide an independent paternity or evidence-preservation dispute.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the coroner decline to release the specimen simply because of a preservation concern? A: The opinion said the coroner had to follow the existing court order unless proper proceedings changed or set it aside.

Q: Did the Attorney General provide an administrative procedure for refusing the order? A: No. It directed that relief from a judicial order be sought through the courts, rather than by disobeying the order.

Q: What was the requested use of the specimen?
A: The request described release to an outside party for establishing paternity. The opinion addressed obedience to the court order, not the merits of paternity.

Background and statutory framework

The coroner asked how the Preservation of Evidence Act related to a court order for a decedent's biological specimen. The Attorney General relied on prior opinions and a South Carolina decision concerning the duty to obey a court order until proper proceedings reverse, modify, or vacate it.

Citations and references

The original text below cites the Preservation of Evidence Act and State v. Bevilacqua in explaining the court-order principle.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-11-2010/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/watts-g-os-9110-8-11-10-preservation-of-evidence-act-biological-specimen-establish-paternity.pdf

Original opinion text

H EN°RY M CM ASTER
ATTORNEY GEN.ERAJ.

August 11 , 2010

The Honorable Gary Watts
Coroner, Richland County
P. 0. Box 192
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Coroner Watts:
In a letter to this office you questioned whether your office " .. .is required to release a biological specimen collected from a decedent to any outside party by order of any court for the purposes of establishing paternity." You cited the ''Preservation of Evidence Act", codified as S.C. Code Ann.§§ 17-28-300 et seq., in raising your question. You also questioned whether " if we are not required to release such specimen by order of the court, what procedure should be followed to inform the court of such refusal to release." A prior opinion of this office dated July 1, 2004 stated as follows:
[w]e note at the outset certain fundamental principles governing obedience of court orders. Generally, " ... a court order must be followed unless and until judicially modified or set aside on appeal." Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., March 18, 2003. As we stated in an Opinion, dated May 8, 1995, "' .. . an order, judgment, or decree of a court having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter .. . must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed, modified, or vacated by direct, orderly and proper proceedings .... "In that same opinion, we emphasized that "disobedience ofan order made by a court within its jurisdiction and power is contempt, although the order may be clearly erroneous, or defendant may sincerely believe that the order is ineffective and will finally be vacated, and even though the act on which the order is based is void." Id. Relief from any judicial order should be sought through the courts rather than through disobedience of the order as"[c ]ourts have no more important function to perform in the administration of justice than to ensure their orders are obeyed." State v. Bevilacqua, 316 S.C. 122, 128, 447 S.E.2d 213, 216 (Ct. App. 1994).

Rfu'1BERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING • POST OFFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, SC 292 11-1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACS1'1ILE 803-253-6283

The Honorable Gary Watts
Page2
August 11, 2010

In the opinion of this office, these same principles apply with equal force to your situation regarding a court order requiring you to release a biological specimen to an outside party. Therefore, such order must be followed unless it is reversed, modified, or vacated by proper proceedings. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours, Henry McMaster Attorney General

cda,JJ(£).aL__
By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General