Also known as: slayers · slayer's · slayer rule · slayer statute
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A person who, without legal excuse or justification, is responsible for the felonious and intentional killing of another. The slayer is denied any right to benefit from the wrong under the slayer rule. Determination of slayer status occurs in a civil proceeding under the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Sierra Santos died when her car exploded in the office parking garage. Her spouse, Steven Silva, was the sole beneficiary under her will and on several life insurance policies. After Steven's criminal conviction for the intentional felonious killing of Sierra, the executor petitioned the probate court. The court treated Steven as a slayer and denied him any interest in the estate or proceeds.
Samantha Stone died after ingesting poison at a dinner. Her fiancé, Sebastian Santos, was named beneficiary of her rental properties in a new will. In a civil probate proceeding, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Sebastian intentionally poisoned Samantha to obtain the properties. The court disqualified Sebastian as a slayer even without a criminal conviction.
Solomon Silver died after a violent altercation with his partner, Sarah Sullivan. Sarah was acquitted of murder on self-defense grounds in criminal court. In the subsequent probate action over a transfer-on-death account, the court applied the civil preponderance standard to the evidence of the altercation and found Sarah responsible for an unjustified intentional killing. Sarah was therefore barred as a slayer.
Howard Mahoney died intestate on May 6, 1961, of gunshot wounds. His wife, Charlotte Mahoney, was tried for the murder of Howard Mahoney in the Addison County Court and was convicted by jury of the crime of manslaughter in March, 1962. She is presently serving a sentence of not less than 12 nor more than 15 years at the Women’s Reformatory in Rutland. Howard Mahoney left no issue, and was survived by his wife and his father and mother. His father, Mark Mahoney, was appointed administrator of his estate which at the present time amounts to $3,885.89. After due notice and hearing, the Probate Court for the District of Franklin entered a judgment order decreeing the residue of the Estate of Howard Mahoney, in equal shares, to the father and mother of the decedent. An appeal from the judgment order and decree has been taken here by the appellant widow. The cause now before us is here on a direct appeal from the Probate Court. Findings of fact were made below from which it appears that the judgment of the probate court decreeing the estate of Howard Mahoney to his parents, rather than to his widow, was based upon a finding of the felonious killing of her husband by Mrs. Mahoney. The Probate Court used the record of the conviction of the appellant for manslaughter for its determination that the appellant had feloniously killed her husband. In Vermont, an indictment for murder can result in a jury conviction on either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The legislature has provided the sentences that may be passed upon a person convicted of manslaughter, but provides no definition of that offense, nor any statutory distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
View caseSterling Dynamics founder Dorothy died in a plane crash piloted by her brother Catherine. Catherine stood to receive controlling shares under Dorothy's will. Although no criminal charges were filed, the probate court weighed evidence of pre-flight modifications and Catherine's recent comments about assuming leadership. The court found by a preponderance that Catherine intentionally caused the crash and disqualified her as a slayer.
Sapphire Holdings owner Elias died after drinking pesticide-laced tea. His daughter Mara was the primary beneficiary under his will. Law enforcement declined to charge Mara, but Elias's other children presented forensic reports and evidence of access in probate court. The court determined by a preponderance that Mara intentionally poisoned Elias and treated her as a slayer, denying her the inheritance.
The probate court applies the preponderance of the evidence standard. A final criminal conviction for the felonious and intentional killing conclusively establishes slayer status, but an acquittal does not preclude a civil finding.
Supporting sources
No. The criminal acquittal means only that guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The probate court may still find by a preponderance of the evidence that the killing was intentional and without legal excuse or justification.
Supporting sources
No. The civil court may determine slayer status on a preponderance of the evidence even when no criminal charges were filed or when prosecutors declined to proceed.
Supporting sources
The rule bars the slayer from any benefit that depends on the victim's death, including probate transfers under a will, intestate shares, and nonprobate transfers such as life insurance or retirement plan proceeds.
Supporting sources
…(3). There is no statutory provision in Vermont regulating the descent and distribution of property from the decedent to the slayer. The question presented is one of first impression in this jurisdiction. In a number of jurisdictions, statutes have been enacted which in certain instances, at least, prevent a person who…