Legal Question in Criminal Law in Minnesota

Re: Who profits from murder

See:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/crimvict.pdf

"�Son of Sam� Law. Minnesota Statutes, section 611A.68, colloquially known as the �Son of Sam� law, prohibits persons who have been convicted of a felony or found not guilty of a felony by reason of insanity from profiting by exploiting the crime in the media or through the

entertainment industry. Any person or organization that enters into a contract with a felony offender for the reenactment of or an interview about the crime must forward any money owed to the offender under the contract to the Minnesota Crime Victims Reparations Board. This prohibition applies for ten years following the conviction or finding of not guilty by reason of insanity or, if the offender is imprisoned, for ten years after the offender�s release. ... It is a gross misdemeanor to willfully fail to notify the board of the existence of a contract covered by the Son of Sam law, and it is a misdemeanor to take any other action to defeat the operation of the statute. The constitutionality of Minnesota�s Son of Sam law has been called into question by the U.S. Supreme Court�s decision in Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board, 112 S. Ct. 501 (1991). In that case, the Court held that New York�s Son of Sam law was overbroad and violated free expression rights under the First Amendment for two reasons: (1) it covered all works concerning the criminal activity of the author, whether or not the author was convicted or even accused of any crime; and (2) it applied to any work by an offender on any subject so long as the work included some thought or recollection by the author concerning his or her crime. Because Minnesota�s law is limited to felony offenders who have been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity, it does not share the first defect of the New York law. However, Minnesota�s law may be vulnerable to constitutional attack for the second reason cited by the Court, because it applies not only to a reenactment of the felony offender�s crime, but also to works containing �the expression of the offender�s thoughts, feelings, opinions, or emotions about the crime.� Minn. Stat. � 611A.68, subd. 1, para. (a)"

/end quote.

Re: Who profits from murder

I am not aware of a Minnesota criminal statute which would apply directly to your hypothetical. However, a lawyer for the niece might be able to craft an argument based upon civil statutes and caselaw to successfully prevent the convicted murderer from inheriting from his victim. There are many possibilities, including the equitable doctrine of "unclean hands," a lawsuit for damages based upon intentional torts including "wrongful death," and so on. Others might also have standing to take legal action as well. It might be possible for the criminal court to take some action to prevent "unjust enrichment." My guess is that one legal action or another could be taken against the convicted murderer, with good chances of success. Take a look at the O.J. Simpson civil case, as one type of example.

Re: Who profits from murder

The relevant Minnesota statutes are below. The answer is that the estate would pass as if the person committing the homicide predeceased the victim. That may give you a problem (or a poorly drafted will) since most wills include provisions transferring the estate to others should a beneficiary predecease the maker. However, if such a clause was excluded from the will (which is only likely to happen if the maker drafted the Will themselves)the estate would pass under the intestacy laws. Under those laws, the estate could pass to the niece only if there were no other living lineal descendants such as parents, grand parents or siblings.

The intestacy statutes are locatd at http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/524/2-103.html

Minnesota's law regarding the effect of homicide is located at http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/524/2-803.html