Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Slayer Law Probate Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Judiciary hears ‘slayer law’ bill; DOJ flags definitions, estoppel and asset issues
Summary
Senate Bill 148 would prohibit convicted killers from profiting from their crimes and let certain interested persons seek relief in probate court. The Department of Justice testified without taking a formal position but urged clarifying changes to definitions and court-procedure language, and the committee formed a small subcommittee for further,
Senator Victoria Sullivan introduced Senate Bill 148, commonly described as a “slayer” or “Son of Sam” law, telling the House Judiciary Committee the measure would prevent people who commit homicide from profiting from commercial works related to their crimes.
“This is often referred to as either the slayer law or the son of Sam law,” Sullivan said. She described the bill as a gap-filling measure: “We are 1 of only 2 states in the country without protections for the families of homicide victims.” Sullivan said the version she presented incorporated many Department of Justice recommendations and included one amendment to make the bill effective immediately.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Agati testified for the Department of Justice and said the department did not take a formal position on the bill but raised several substantive statutory and procedural concerns the committee should consider. Agati asked the legislature to clarify key definitions such as “interested person,” and to consider how the statute’s language — which refers to an actor who “feloniously and intentionally kills” — would interact with New Hampshire homicide law, where different crimes carry different mental-state elements (for example, reckless or negligent homicide versus purposeful/knowing homicide).
Agati also warned the committee to consider how a probate-court remedy could affect parallel criminal prosecutions. The bill would allow an “interested person” to file in probate to restrain or recoup assets. Agati said probate proceedings operate on lower evidentiary standards than criminal trials and that the doctrine of estoppel could allow a criminal defendant to later argue that a probate finding should bar criminal prosecution.
He also urged clarification of phrases such as “provisional remedies,” which appear in the bill and lack a plain statutory definition in this context; without specification, he said, courts might interpret the term widely or unpredictably.
Committee members discussed logistics, and the chair authorized a small subcommittee to work the bill with interested parties and DOJ. Representatives Alexander, Birch and Mannos agreed to serve on the subcommittee.
Why it matters: The bill aims to block perpetrators of homicide from financially benefitting from their crimes and to provide victims’ families a civil remedy. DOJ testimony focused on ensuring the statutory text aligns with prosecutorial practice and avoids unintended conflicts between probate remedies and criminal prosecution.
