Article on Note: What Should We Do With Norman Bates? Proposing Reform To the Uniform Probate Code to Allow Inheritance in Cases of Legal Insanity

Declan J. Murray recently published an Article entitled, Note: What Should We Do With Norman Bates? Proposing Reform To the Uniform Probate Code to Allow Inheritance in Cases of Legal Insanity. 31 Quinnipiac Prob. L.J. 190 (2018). Provided below is an abstract of the Article:

The legal system in the United States of America contains a number of broadly accepted moral propositions, among these, the idea that it is unjust to allow one to profit from a wrongful act and the idea that it is unjust to punish a person to whom we cannot impose blame. These specific propositions are brought to bear in the form of laws related to unjust enrichment, specifically section 2-803 of the Uniform Probate Code (“UPC”) and the insanity defense. However, on occasion, these moral propositions come into conflict. The UPC is silent on what should occur when a legally insane person stands to inherit from someone they killed. This Note seeks to rectify this conflict by proposing that the UPC “slayer statute,” section 2-803, be amended to specifically allow inheritance in cases where a person kills while legally insane. Case law on this specific situation is sparse and statutory help is nearly nonexistent. This puts judges in the uncomfortable position of having to interpret and apply the law where none exists, essentially forcing them to “make a determination that the legislature should have made.” While concerns about killers inheriting from their victims are legitimate, the insanity exception is designed to be narrow, just as the insanity defense offers a narrow exception to criminal liability. This Note's proposed amended statute would not open the door to inheritance to the conniving son or scheming wife, who has been the subject of many an Agatha Christie novel or episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.

This Note will explore the interaction and conflict between legal insanity and slayer statutes through a number of sections: beginning with a discussion of the policy considerations behind slayer statutes and the insanity defense, followed by a discussion of how different courts have analyzed this issue, and concluding with the proposed language of the amended statute, as well as a discussion of its import. This proposition seeks to further the policy considerations underlying both the slayer statute and the insanity defense, as well as to provide a statute that is more conducive to uniform interpretation.