Opinion ID: 2621386
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Forfeiture of estate

Text: Blodgett next contends that the application of the slayer statute resulted in a forfeiture of estate in violation of article I, section 15 of the Alaska Constitution. That section provides: Prohibited State Action. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. No law impairing the obligation of contracts, and no law making any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be passed. No conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate. (Emphasis added.) These provisions respond to certain practices and doctrines inherited from England. [51] Attainder existed at common law; it was the act of extinguishing a person's civil rights when that person is sentenced to death or declared an outlaw for committing a felony or treason. [52] Incident to attainder and as punishment for the crime, the felon forfeited all of his lands and chattels to the state. [53] We affirm the superior court's rejection of Blodgett's forfeiture of estate claim on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, Blodgett waived his argument by inadequately briefing the issue. In his brief he alleged that the slayer statute . . . works a forfeiture and cited article I, section 15 of the Alaska Constitution, but he did not construct any argument as to why that section should invalidate Alaska's slayer statute. [54] Substantively, the law is clearand many states have heldthat the forfeiture of estate clause is not implicated by the slayer rule. [55] Several rationales support this conclusion. First, any loss caused by a slayer statute is not improperly based on attainders or on the legal status of a felon; rather, the slayer statute exists to effectuate the accepted policy that a killer should not profit from his wrong. [56] The rule does not prevent the slayer from inheriting in general; it only prevents the slayer from inheriting from the slayer's victim. Second, courts have noted that the application of the slayer rule does not actually cause a forfeiture, because the offender did not own the property at the time of the homicide; he merely had an expectancy interest. [57] By killing the decedent, the slayer prevents the property interest from vesting in himself. [58] Third, the constitutional language suggests that it covers complete forfeiture, but even assuming that something is forfeited as the result of application of the slayer statute, it is not the entire estate, but merely some property. [59] Finally, the slayer statute differs from the effect of attainder in that it generally results in the estate going to the other heirs, not to the government. [60] Because the forfeiture of estate clause is clearly inapplicable, Blodgett's argument here must fail.