The Texas slayer statute, found at Estates Code Section 201.058, bars a person convicted and sentenced for willfully causing an insured’s death from collecting that person’s life insurance. That is all the statute does. Everything else people assume it covers — inheriting under a will, taking through intestacy, jointly held property, cases where no one was ever convicted — is handled by a separate court-made doctrine called the constructive trust. Whether the statute or the doctrine applies to your situation turns almost entirely on whether there is a criminal conviction and what kind of asset is at stake.
What the Statute Covers
Section 201.058 is short and narrow. Subsection (a) says no conviction works corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate except as provided in subsection (b). Subsection (b) then addresses a single scenario: when a life insurance beneficiary is convicted and sentenced for willfully bringing about the death of the insured, the proceeds are paid according to the Insurance Code.1State of Texas. Texas Code Estates Code 201.058 – Convicted Persons
The statute does not touch wills. It does not touch intestate shares. It does not address real estate, bank accounts, retirement accounts, or joint property. And it requires an actual criminal conviction with a sentence, not just an arrest or an indictment. If you are looking to the statute alone, its reach stops at life insurance and convicted killers.
The Constructive Trust Doctrine Does the Real Work
The broader rule against a killer inheriting comes from Texas case law, not the code. The Texas Supreme Court established in Pope v. Garrett (1948) and reinforced in Bounds v. Caudle (1977) that a person who murders someone cannot inherit from the victim, resting on the principle that no one should profit from their own wrongdoing.
The tool courts use is a constructive trust. Legal title to the property still passes to the killer under normal probate rules, but the court imposes a trust that strips the beneficial interest and redirects it to the rightful heirs. This structure avoids the constitutional prohibition against forfeiture of estate while keeping the killer from actually enjoying any of the assets. Once the trust is in place, the killer cannot sell, spend, or benefit from the property while the court sorts things out.
The remedy is not automatic. An heir has to plead for a constructive trust and prove specific elements: the wrongful conduct, who should receive the assets instead, and exactly which property the trust should cover. Courts have said the proof must be strict and specific, tying the wrongful act to each asset being claimed. Simply showing that the beneficiary killed the decedent, without more, is not enough.
The Standard of Proof Is Lower Than in Criminal Court
For life insurance, Texas courts have held that a criminal conviction is not required to strip a beneficiary of their interest. Insurance Code Section 1103.151 says a beneficiary forfeits their interest if they were a principal or accomplice in willfully bringing about the death of the insured.2State of Texas. Texas Insurance Code 1103.151 – Forfeiture Interpreting that provision in In the Estate of Stafford (2007), courts have ruled that a challenger only needs to prove the willful killing by a preponderance of the evidence — more likely than not.
The gap between that standard and “beyond a reasonable doubt” is where surprising results happen. A person acquitted in criminal court can still lose the life insurance payout in a separate civil case. Police reports, witness testimony, and forensic evidence that fell short in the criminal trial can be enough to establish forfeiture in probate court.
For non-insurance inheritance, the picture is less crisp. Section 201.058 requires a conviction, so its automatic bar only reaches convicted killers.1State of Texas. Texas Code Estates Code 201.058 – Convicted Persons When an heir seeks a constructive trust instead, the court weighs the evidence in front of it. No criminal prosecution has to have happened at all. If prosecutors declined to file, or a grand jury refused to indict, family members can still ask the probate court for the equitable remedy.
Where the Money Goes Instead
Life Insurance Proceeds
When a beneficiary is disqualified, Insurance Code Section 1103.152 sets the order of payment. If the insured named a contingent beneficiary, that person collects the full payout.3State of Texas. Texas Insurance Code 1103.152 – Payment of Proceeds to Contingent Beneficiary or to Relative If the contingent beneficiary also participated in the killing, they forfeit too. When no eligible contingent beneficiary exists, the proceeds go to the nearest relative of the insured, not to the estate by default. Depending on the family, that could be a parent, a sibling, or a child.
Everything Else
For non-insurance assets moved through a constructive trust, the disqualified killer is generally treated as though they died before the victim. The estate then passes to whoever would have been next under the will or, absent a will, under Texas intestacy rules. The killer’s own children can still inherit. If a father is disqualified from inheriting from a grandfather, the grandchildren may step into the father’s place, depending on the estate plan or intestacy rules.
The trust reaches only the killer’s beneficial interest in what would have come from the victim. It does not sweep in innocent relatives, and it does not touch property the killer owns through unrelated lawful means.
When There Is No Criminal Conviction
This is where most families get stuck. Because Section 201.058 requires a conviction and sentence, a killer who is never charged, never indicted, or acquitted falls outside the statute. That does not close the door. Texas courts can still impose a constructive trust, order equitable forfeiture, or disinherit by judicial order.
The difference is procedural and expensive. With a conviction, the statutory path for insurance proceeds is close to automatic. Without one, the family has to file a civil action, build the evidence, and persuade a court to impose the trust. That burden sits entirely on the challenging relatives, and contested probate litigation of this type can run into tens of thousands of dollars in fees and stretch across months or years.
ERISA Benefits Follow a Federal Rule
If the victim’s benefits came through an employer-sponsored plan governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, state slayer rules do not apply directly because ERISA preempts them. Federal courts have consistently applied a federal common law slayer rule that reaches the same result. In Standard Insurance Company v. Guy, the Sixth Circuit held that when an ERISA plan says nothing about slayer scenarios, federal common law fills the gap and prevents a manifestly unjust outcome.
There is some uncertainty. The Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan (2009) emphasized strict adherence to plan documents, which could in theory limit courts overriding a named beneficiary. So far, every federal circuit to address the question has kept killers from collecting ERISA benefits, either through the state statute or through federal common law as a backup. If the victim held significant retirement benefits or employer-provided life insurance, the plan administrator will typically file an interpleader action and let a court decide.
Joint Property With a Right of Survivorship
When the killer and victim owned property together with a right of survivorship, the survivorship right would normally hand the killer sole ownership. Texas has no specific statute for this. Courts would likely apply constructive trust principles, sever the joint tenancy, and convert it to a tenancy in common. The killer keeps their original share and loses the survivor’s share, which passes to the victim’s estate. This corner of Texas law is underdeveloped, and courts fashion the remedy case by case rather than applying a fixed rule.
Practical Steps for Challenging an Inheritance
If you believe a beneficiary or heir killed the decedent and is moving to collect, speed matters. The constructive trust is not imposed on the court’s own motion. Someone has to ask for it. Notify the executor or administrator of the estate, the life insurance company, and any bank holding jointly owned accounts. Insurance companies that learn of a possible slayer situation often freeze the payout and file an interpleader so the court can decide.
Pull together every piece of evidence you can reach: police reports, autopsy results, witness statements, and any prior incidents of violence or threats. Even without criminal charges, that record can support a civil constructive trust claim. An attorney who handles contested probate can tell you whether the facts fit an equitable claim and what standard of proof will govern given the type of asset at stake.