(Spoiler) Slayer Rule in Knives Out (2019): Can accidental homicide also disbar you from inheritance?
<p>Spoilers from the movie - Knives Out (2019). I want to investigate if the movie's plot operates correctly regarding the legal principle in question - Slayer Rule.</p>

<p>Millionaire Harlan Thornby bequeaths his entire estate to his nurse (but she doesn't know this). One night, she accidentally administers him a fatal dose of morphine. She looks for the antidote but cannot find it. Harlan Thornby would die in 10 minutes because there is no antidote. He sends her away and asks her to pretend everything is alright. And then slits his own throat with a knife and dies. His body is discovered next morning and the will is read. </p>

<p>Question: Was his throat-slitting necessary to protect the nurse from being disbarred from his inheritance? Does the throat slitting help or is she still disbarred?</p>

<p>Dying from one cause before another cause can take effect precludes the second cause from being the official cause of death, and therefore from the creation of liability for that second cause of death.</p>

<p>In the simplest case, such as this one, death by suicide precludes death by murder (with the exception of specific circumstances in some jurisdictions). If Thornby clearly and knowingly, without coercion, kills himself, there is no civil liability for wrongful death or criminal liability for homicide on the part of the nurse. The nurse is then not prevented from inheriting the wealth bequested to them - as would be likely if Thornby had died by the nurse's negligence.</p>

<p>It depends, mildly, on jurisdiction. In the US, there has been a political program of encoding common law principles into statutes. As an example, Arizona has a <a href="https://www.azleg.gov/ars/14/02803.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"slayer rule" statute</a>, which states that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A person who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent forfeits
  all benefits under this chapter with respect to the decedent's estate,
  including an intestate share, an elective share, an omitted spouse's
  or child's share, a homestead allowance, exempt property and a family
  allowance. If the decedent died intestate, the decedent's intestate
  estate passes as if the killer disclaimed that person's intestate
  share.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>with numerous similar provisions. Moreover, the law holds that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Felonious and intentional" means a conviction or a finding of guilty
  except insane for a homicide pursuant to section <a href="https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01103.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">13-1103</a>, 13-1104 or
  13-1105.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A possibly relevant question here is whether the nurse would be convictable under ARS §13-1103 (manslaughter), but this is only relevant in re-writing the movie. Arizona law requires an actual conviction, see <a href="https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/cb2def88/files/uploaded/butwin.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Butwin v. Butwin et al.</a>. Given that this is a hypothetical, we can then ask if a manslaughter conviction is legally possible. Conviction is possible for a person "Recklessly causing the death of another person". You should also note that the slayer rule does not include a conviction under <a href="https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01102.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ARS §13-1102</a>, which is negligent homicide ("with criminal negligence the person causes the death of another person"). The circumstances described could sustain a negligent homicide conviction but not a regular manslaughter conviction.</p>

inheritance