Please read post #18 and get back to us on that. Thanks.
Actually, I am quite familiar with the statute. I just didn't have the cite handy.
Under art. 49.04, the JP first determines whether or not an "inquest" is necessary. There is a laundry list of circumstances listed when an inquest is required. Under art. 49.01(2), an "inquest" is defined as simply "an investigation into the cause and circumstances of the death of a person, and a determination, made with or without a formal court hearing, as to whether the death was caused by an unlawful act or omission."
Under art. 49.10, the JP then determines whether an autopsy may or must be performed. In making this determination, a JP may, at his discretion, "obtain the opinion of a county health officer or a physician concerning the necessity of obtaining an autopsy in order to determine or confirm the nature and cause of a death."
If a body is subject to an inquest, then the JP is required, again at the JP's discretion, to either (1) direct a physician to perform an autopsy, or (2) certify that no autopsy is necessary.
Finally, there are some limited circumstances when the JP has no discretion not to request an autopsy (such as death of a child by abuse or neglect).
As I stated above, in most cases, no autopsy is required or conducted. In this case, however, I think the JP should have exercised his discretion to request one.
Is a pillow over the head suspicious?