Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
- A judge's decision to determine whether death-row inmate Ralph Menzies is competent to be executed may take months.
- Experts disagree on Menzies' mental health, with conflicting diagnoses presented.
- Menzies' execution was paused for competency evaluation due to dementia claims.
WEST JORDAN — A week of testimony from various medical experts is over, but it may still take months before a judge determines whether death-row inmate Ralph Menzies is competent enough to be executed.
The delay comes as additional witnesses are set to testify.
A witness Menzies' attorney Eric Zuckerman said he wants to call to the stand as a rebuttal witness will testify on Dec. 9. Dr. Lynette M. Abrams-Silva testified during the hearing on Wednesday but was unavailable to testify again at the conclusion of the hearing.
Heidi Nestel, the attorney for the victim's family, said the family would also like the opportunity to talk to the judge during that hearing.
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.
He was first sentenced to death in 1988. In early 2024, Utah issued an execution warrant for Menzies, and that was put on hold after Menzies' attorneys claimed he has dementia and asked the court to evaluate his competency.
Third District Judge Matthew Bates says the court during the Dec. 9 hearing will set a schedule for attorneys to file briefs, which could take one or two months, and schedule a time for the attorneys to present oral arguments. After that process, Bates said he would take time to issue a written ruling, ultimately determining whether Menzies' mental health allows him to understand why Utah would be executing him.
"This is a complicated issue. There are significant legal questions that need to be answered by the court, significant factual questions that need to be answered by the court," Bates said.
Menzies attended most of this week's hearings after being excused from many of the recent hearings in his case. He wore a white prison suit and remained handcuffed. He missed one day of the weeklong hearing due to a medical appointment.
"It's good you're here Mr. Menzies; this is an important hearing. It concerns you," Bates said after granting the request for Menzies to miss Wednesday's hearing.
Michael Brooks, a forensic psychologist, diagnosed Menzies with "major neurocognitive disorder due to vascular factors," which he said is similar to vascular dementia. Brooks was called to the stand by Menzies' attorney, although Brooks testified that Menzies is competent enough to be executed.
Brooks noted Menzies says he has increasing periods of confusion and exaggerated his time in prison, but Menzies has indicated he believes his trial was unjust, saying he was set for execution because "the state wants to show they can murder people."
Dr. Ryan Green did not agree that Menzies has a major neurocognitive disorder. He said Menzies was "rather disgruntled" but worked to build a rapport or a connection with Green. He said this relationship could have led to his conclusion, where he found Menzies was able to perform the tasks he needed to for daily living, including doing many things on his iPad.
Abrams-Silva, who will return to the stand again, shared her opinion that Menzies is not competent enough to be executed.
The conflicting evaluations of Menzies by multiple doctors, and each expert's qualifications, often seemed to be at issue throughout the weeklong presentation. Zuckerman pointed out that Green had been trained by a doctor who found Menzies has major mental illness, although Green found Menzies does not.
A transcription of a recording of Menzies' interview with Green was also brought into question, which Green said he had not given to prosecutors. Zuckerman, however, said it had been passed to him by prosecutors. The controversy led to Zuckerman asking the judge to declare a mistrial or to find that Green had perjured himself by saying he had passed all of his notes and then saying he had not provided the transcript. The judge declined to declare a mistrial or to find Green had perjured himself.
