CNN repoted a former NFL player Eric Napowski and his ex girlfriend have been charged with the 1994 murder of her boyfriend at the time. Orange County California district attorney believe that Bill Mclauglin who was dating Nanetter Packard Mcneal at the time was murdered for money.
She was the named beneficiary of a $1 million dollar life insurance policy on his life and was named to receive $150,000 through his will along with rent free living at beach house for a year and she pursuaded her ex boyfriend to murder Bill so she could receive the money. She then gave Eric the key and let him know when Bill would be home. Eric apparently shot him 6 times then went to a nearby nightclub where he was a bouncer.
The relationship started with her filing a personal ad that said "I know how to take care of my man if he knows how to take care of me". He then supported her financially and bought her a beach house.
They now face potential life sentences for murder. She has already been jailed once for writing checks to herself from her rich boyfriends account without his knowledge including $250,000 check on the day he was killed. She plead guilty to that in 1996 and was jailed for a year.
The murder case had become a cold case although new evidence prompted the arrests. She is due in court tomorrow and he was arrested in Connecticut where he lives and Orange County California district attorneys office has asked that he be sent to California to face trial. Eric is now 42 and had played for the New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts in the late 80s.
Police had long suspected them but were unable to find the gun and had not felt they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the murder so they had not been arrested.
The California slayer statute which is probate code section 250 says that a person who "feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent" is not entitled to any of the decedent's property, interest, or benefit, which then goes to the heirs "as if the killer had predeceased the decedent.
However, the California Slayer Statute could likely have applied in this case. In Florida the slayer statute would provide that if it is proven more likely than not that she unlawfully and intentionally killed or participates in the killing of the decedent she would not have been entitled to any benefits under the will or any property which passed by reason of his death such as the life insurance policy. This would be heard in probate court to determine if the facts show by the greater weight of the evidence the statute has been satisfied. If it has then the property would pass as if the killer had immediately pre deceased the victim. The statute explictly says that a named beneficiary of a life insurance policy, or other contractual arrangement unlawfully and intentionally kills would not inherit. Her having obtained someone to murder, given them the key and letting them know when to act in order for her to inherit are obviously sufficient to show she participated if those were proven. Had the criminal case occured earlier a conviction of murder would have been conclusive proof that the slayer statute applies. However in Florida the proper public policy that killers should not profit from their crime and only the more likely than not standard is required so despite no conviction or even an arrest a person could still be prevented from inheriting. If there was no alternate beneficiary the probate would then pass pursuant to the Will or through intestate succession if there was no will.