Counsel for Ralph Menzies Appeal Competency Ruling as State Moves to Set Execution Date

On June 6, 2025, District Judge Matthew Bates issued a rul­ing find­ing Utah death-sen­tenced pris­on­er Ralph Menzies men­tal­ly com­pe­tent to be exe­cut­ed despite con­cerns pre­sent­ed by Mr. Menzies’ attor­neys about his vas­cu­lar demen­tia. In his rul­ing, Judge Bates agreed that Mr. Menzies suf­fers from vas­cu­lar demen­tia but said Mr. Menzies had failed to show ​“by a pre­pon­der­ance of the evi­dence that his men­tal con­di­tion pre­vents him from reach­ing a ratio­nal under­stand­ing of the pun­ish­ment or the State’s rea­sons for it.” Attorneys for Mr. Menzies called the state’s deci­sion to move ahead with Mr. Menzies’ sched­uled exe­cu­tion ​“deeply trou­bling,” not­ing “[Mr.] Menzies is a severe­ly brain-dam­aged, wheel­chair-bound, 67-year-old man with demen­tia and sig­nif­i­cant mem­o­ry prob­lems. His demen­tia is pro­gres­sive and he is not going to get bet­ter.” They have appealed the rul­ing to the Utah Supreme Court.

Mr. Menzies was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death in 1988 for the kid­nap­ping and mur­der of Maurine Hunsaker. Since his ini­tial sen­tenc­ing, the state has issued and sought sev­er­al exe­cu­tion war­rants, with the most recent request filed in January 2024. In response, coun­sel for Mr. Menzies has argued that their client is not com­pe­tent for exe­cu­tion. In February 2024, the 3^rd District Court ruled that evi­dence pre­sent­ed by Mr. Menzies’ attor­neys of his demen­tia and cog­ni­tive decline required a for­mal assess­ment of his com­pe­ten­cy to face exe­cu­tion by fir­ing squad. As explained by his ini­tial request for a com­pe­ten­cy hear­ing, Mr. Menzies has been diag­nosed with a major neu­rocog­ni­tive dis­or­der known as vas­cu­lar demen­tia, lim­it­ing his ​“mem­o­ry, infor­ma­tion pro­cess­ing, abstract rea­son­ing, and problem solving.” 

Over the course of six days in late 2024, both defense coun­sel and pros­e­cu­tors pre­sent­ed evi­dence regard­ing Mr. Menzies men­tal sta­tus to deter­mine whether he meets the estab­lished thresh­old. During the hear­ing, attor­neys for Mr. Menzies argued that Utah’s stan­dard for deter­min­ing com­pe­ten­cy is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. Judge Bates ruled that ​“it is enough for the Court to find that Menzies under­stands that he is about to be exe­cut­ed by the state as pun­ish­ment for mur­der­ing Maurine Hunsaker and that his under­stand­ing is not so dis­tort­ed by his vas­cu­lar demen­tia that his exe­cu­tion would not serve a ret­ribu­tive and deterrent purpose.”

In reach­ing his deci­sion, Judge Bates point­ed to Mr. Menzies’ abil­i­ty to com­mu­ni­cate with his fam­i­ly over phone calls and evi­dence that he under­stands the sever­i­ty of his crime. Counsel for Mr. Menzies have also filed an appeal with the Utah Supreme Court, ask­ing the state’s high­est court to recon­sid­er Judge Bates’ deci­sion. A hear­ing is sched­uled for July in front of Judge Bates to con­sid­er the state’s request for an exe­cu­tion war­rant. Mr. Menzies will also have an oppor­tu­ni­ty to request clemency.