Law of Wills, 2016A

CONCLUSION
Based upon this Court’s holding that the Slayer Statute requires a finding of willful conduct in order
to preclude a person from inheriting from his or her victim, this judgment is reversed and the case is
remanded for a hearing to determine John’s mental status at the time of the murder and whether he
wilfully caused Joan’s death. The Slayer Statute will be applicable only if it is proven that, at the time
of the murder, John’s actions were willful. The chancellor is instructed that “all evidence which will
throw any light on the issue of whether or not this killing was willful is competent and admissible.”
Henry, 50 So. 2d at 923.
Reversed and remanded.
Notes and Questions
1. If a child kills his or her parent, that child cannot inherit from the deceased parent’s estate.
Should this barrier to inheritance be limited to murder? What if a child commits another crime
against the parent like assault or financial exploitation? See Frances H. Foster, Towards a Behavior-Based
Model of Inheritance?: The Chinese Experiment, 32 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 77 (Fall 1998).
2. Should the ability to inherit be linked to the relationship between the parent and the child? If a
child mistreats or neglects a parent, should that child be permitted to inherit from that parent’s
estate?
3. In deciding whether or not a person should be prohibited from inheriting from the person he or
she kills, the court must answer two main questions. First, the court must decide whether the slayer
statute applies to the situation. The slayer statute usually does not apply unless the case involves an
intentional or reckless killing. In some jurisdictions, crimes like assisted suicide are exempted from
the slayer statute. Second, the court must decide whether the child has violated the statute. The
statute has been violated if the child has been convicted of an intentional or reckless killing.
Nonetheless, the child’s acquittal does not preclude the probate court from concluding that the child
has violated the slayer statute. The probate court is not bound by the decision reached in the
criminal court and has the authority to conduct its own hearing to determine whether or not the
persons has violated the statute. In the probate hearing, the standard of proof is preponderance of
the evidence as opposed to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal court. For
instance, O.J. Simpson was acquitted in a criminal court of killing his wife. However, the jury in the
civil court found him liable for the murder. In the slayer context, the child may be acquitted in
criminal court and found liable for the murder in the probate court. A finding of civil liability for the
murder may be sufficient for the probate court to find that the child has violated the slayer statute.
See Mary Louise Fellows, The Slayer Rule: Not Soley A Matter of Equity, 71 Iowa L. Rev. 489 (January
1986); Tara L. Pehush, Maryland is Dying For a Slayer Statute: The Ineffectiveness of the Common Law Slayer
Rule in Maryland, 35 U. Balt. L. Rev. 271 (Winter 2005).
4. What are the arguments for and against slayer statutes? What components should be included in a
slayer statute?
406