Should the young man get the inheritance?

Question

As things stand in the beginning, the boy stands to inherit a lot of money from his uncle when he dies. However, the boy learns that the uncle plans to write him out of the will. Therefore, the boy kills the uncle before his uncle is able to change the will. He is charged with murder and convicted. While in jail, he petitions the probate court for the money he is claims he is due under his dead uncle's will. The uncle's sisters vehemently oppose letting the boy collect the money.

The problem: there is no law on the books in that jurisdiction that would prevent the boy from getting his money. The Judge is very perplexed. On one hand, the judge believes it would be unjust for the boy to get the money. On the other hand, the judge says, under the law that is on the books, the boy gets the money. The judge asks you what she ought to do. What do ya think?

Actually, this is not a homework question. I am a professor and am asking you all a question I asked my students.

By the way, I want you to assume that in this state, there is no positive law (no law on the books) that would prevent the boy from getting the money. Does anyone nevertheless have any reservations about the boy receiving the money?

Answer 1

The slayer rule [1] is WELL ESTABLISHED in common law jurisprudence.
So even if the the doctrine is not on the books yet -- this would be the excellent time for the judge to introduce the doctrine to this jurisdiction.
In common law[2] it is common practice for the judges to apply a well established legal doctrine if the question of this law was not conclusively dealt with by the legislature. Thus since the slayer rule is so well established everywhere else -- the judge will have no problem applying it in this case and denying the boy the inheritance.

Now if the law on the books would EXPLICITLY state that "slayer rule doe snot apply in our jurisdiction" then the judge would be required to award the inheritance to the boy.

Basically a judge can assume that if the legislature did not explicitly dealt with the issue then they implicitly agree with the common law doctrine.

P.S.
Issues like this are quite real.
For example take a look at court's reasoning in a case "Jones v. Van Zandt"[3]
IN that case all judges felt that it is wrong to return the escaped slave t the owner, but the law was quite clear on the opposite.

Answer 2

Do your own homework. This IS a homework question. In real life the Judge WON'T ask your opinion. This is not even a LAW question, it is a PHILOSOPHY question. By your own admission, the LAW is clear. The murderer IS the heir.

Answer 3

There is a law that says you can't benifit finacially from a criminal enterprise. Plus, that is why we have judges, to make the tough choices. I don't think the kid should get a penny.

Answer 4

Where is he going to spend it?

Give it to the sister's.