Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
- Ralph Menzies' attorney argued Utah's execution competency standard is unconstitutional during the first day of his competency hearing.
- Doctors testified Menzies shows signs of dementia, impacting his understanding of why Utah plans to execute him.
- He was found guilty of murdering a mother who worked at a gas station in Kearns in 1986.
WEST JORDAN — The attorney for death-row inmate Ralph Menzies claimed on Monday that Utah's legal standard for being competent to be executed is unconstitutional.
Eric Zuckerman said being competent enough to face state-ordered execution is more nuanced than Utah's law takes into account and that the standard — being aware of why the state wants to execute you — was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Zuckerman argued that Menzies should be able to understand the meaning of his execution, its purpose, society's interest in retribution and deterrence, and understand why his crime was more severe than other murders.
He said his client can be fine some days but has bad days when he exhibits signs of dementia.
Menzies was found guilty of murdering Maurine Hunsaker, a 26-year-old mother of three who worked at a gas station in Kearns, in 1986. She called to tell her husband she had been abducted, and her body was found in Big Cottonwood Canyon two days later.
Shortly after Menzies was sentenced to death, and after his first execution warrant was issued on March 30, 1988, the court put his death sentence on hold pending an appeal. The sentence was affirmed multiple times, including by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Most recently, in October 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his case.
In early 2024, Utah issued another execution warrant for Menzies, and that was put on hold after Menzies' attorneys claimed he has dementia. Those attorneys called multiple doctors to the witness stand on Monday to support their claim.
Dr. Erin Bigler, a neurologist, said Menzies' brain has lost volume, testifying to scans of his brain. He said as people age, their brains get smaller.
Another neurologist, Dr. Thomas Hyde, testified about conversations with Menzies regarding his understanding of the potential execution and said he was "mildly restless" and "inappropriately agitated" during the interview, requiring breaks — something he said is common with vascular dementia.
Hyde said he started two interviews, about eight months apart, with an open-ended question about why Utah wanted to execute Menzies. Both times, Menzies shared a "persecutory delusion" that his sentence was part of a judge's effort to avoid criticism or a conspiracy between the prosecutor, judge and news outlets.
When pushed, Hyde said Menzies could explain the state's reasoning but interjected with his story saying he knows differently. Ultimately, Hyde said he doesn't believe Menzies understands.
He said in order to diagnose vascular dementia, patients need to have at least a year of cognitive decline and memory dysfunction and said multiple evaluations are important due to dementia patients having good and bad days.
Evidence is expected to be presented throughout the week from both Menzies' attorneys and prosecutors. Following that testimony, attorneys will submit written briefs with arguments to 3rd District Judge Matthew Bates, who will be tasked with deciding whether the execution process should move forward.
Before the hearing began Monday, assistant attorney general Erin Riley argued that a medical report from Oct. 18 was too recent and should not be allowed at the hearing. However, after hearing from both sides, Bates decided to allow it, noting that it might lead to a later hearing if prosecutors need to get more evidence to contradict that report.
Riley said she wanted to present her opening arguments after Menzies' attorneys called their witnesses, so she has not yet explained the state's position. Still, Riley told the judge that the state does not agree with Zuckerman's claim that Utah's standard was not constitutional.
