Could a South Carolina coroner disregard a court order to release a specimen over evidence-preservation concerns?

Plain-English summary

In 2010, Richland County's coroner sought clarification about a court order to release a deceased person's biological specimen to an outside party for paternity testing. The AG reaffirmed its August opinion: an outstanding order had to be followed unless a court reversed, modified, or vacated it. The coroner could not simply disobey because of concerns about the Preservation of Evidence Act.

The AG said the coroner should present those concerns to the court so it could determine how the order and preservation duties fit together. Its direct instruction was: “You cannot simply ignore the court's order because of concerns of your responsibilities under the Act.”

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

Could the coroner refuse to release the specimen under an outstanding order? A: The AG said no. The order remained binding until changed or set aside by proper court proceedings.

What if release seemed to conflict with the evidence-preservation law? A: The AG said the coroner had to raise that concern with the issuing court for a ruling on the interaction between the order and the Act.

Did the opinion decide how much specimen to keep?
A: No. This brief clarification focused on obeying a court order and taking preservation questions back to the court.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion followed an August 11, 2010 AG response to the same coroner about release for paternity testing. It repeated the general rule that an order issued by a court with jurisdiction must be obeyed until reversed, modified, or vacated through judicial process. It then applied that rule to the coroner's stated Preservation of Evidence Act concern.

Citations and references

The opinion discussed the Preservation of Evidence Act, its August 11, 2010 predecessor opinion, and prior AG opinions on obedience to court orders.

Official title

Requesting clarification of previous opinion dated August 11, 2010. That opinion questioned whether the coroner's office "…is

Requester

to release a biological specimen collected from a decedent to any outside party by order of any court for the purposes of establishing paternity."

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-12-2010/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/watts-g-os-9147-10-12-10-release-biological-specimen-establishing-paternity.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY McMAsTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL

October 12, 2010

The Honorable Gary Watts
Coroner, Richland County
P. O.Box 192
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Coroner Watts:
In a letter to this office you requested clarification of an opinion of this office dated August 11, 2010 which dealt with the question of 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." Reference was made to the "Preservation of Evidence Act" (hereinafter "the Act"), S.C. Code Ann. § 17-28-300 et seq. That opinion cited a prior opinion of this office dated July 1, 2004 which 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. Bevilacqu~ 316 S.C. 122, 128, 447 S.E.2d 213, 216 (Ct. App. 1994). The August 11, 2010 opinion concluded that 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.

REMBERT C. DENNJS BUILDING

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549 • TBLEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSlMILE 803-253-6283

The Honorable Gary Watts
Page2
October 12, 2010

As I indicated in our telephone conversation, our opinion remains the same as far as your being required to comply with any outstanding court order. As to any concerns regarding responsibilities pursuant to the Act, those concerns should be addressed to the court so that the court could make any determination as to your responsibilities in light of its order and the mandate of the Act. You cannot simply ignore the court's order because of concerns of your responsibilities under the Act. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours, Henry McMaster Attorney General

cf!a1~1;£!ilcJ__
By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Deputy Attorney General

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General