Utah Pardon Board Denies Clemency to Ralph Menzies, Wheelchair-Bound Man Who Suffers From Terminal Vascular Dementia

On August 19, 2025, the Utah Pardons Board denied Ralph Menzies’ peti­tion for com­mu­ta­tion, despite his wors­en­ing demen­tia, fail­ing health, and evi­dence that his 1988 death sen­tence ​“was imposed in error” and ​“obtained using per­jured tes­ti­mo­ny.” The Pardons Board was asked to com­mute his sen­tence to life with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole (LWOP). According to report­ing by the Utah News Dispatch, Utah’s Pardon Board has nev­er grant­ed clemen­cy to a death-sentenced person. 

Attorneys for Mr. Menzies note he suf­fers from vas­cu­lar demen­tia, a pro­gres­sive ter­mi­nal con­di­tion that means he no longer under­stands why the State of Utah is seek­ing to exe­cute him. The August 13 – 14, 2025, Pardon Board hear­ing fea­tured tes­ti­mo­ny by duel­ing med­ical pro­fes­sion­als who gave strik­ing­ly dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives on Mr. Menzies’ men­tal fac­ul­ties. Doctors for the defense stat­ed Mr. Menzies’ vas­cu­lar demen­tia meant that ​“his brain is wast­ing away,” while one doc­tor tes­ti­fy­ing for the state said he ​“found lit­tle evi­dence of cog­ni­tive decline” and anoth­er admit­ted that he ​“prob­a­bly had some cog­ni­tive decline.” Both doc­tors called by the state admit­ted their con­clu­sions were based large­ly on record­ed phone calls Mr. Menzies has made to his fam­i­ly over the past few months. 

During the hear­ing, evi­dence was also pre­sent­ed that Mr. Menzies’ death sen­tence was the result of error. Mr. Menzies’ peti­tion for com­mu­ta­tion notes the orig­i­nal sen­tenc­ing judge in his case, Judge Raymond Uno, now deceased, signed an affi­davit in 2010 admit­ting that he had ​“mis­ap­plied the law.” Judge Uno said his error should ​“result in a reduc­tion in the sen­tence from cap­i­tal mur­der to … life impris­on­ment.” According to Mr. Menzies’ attor­neys, Judge Uno’s state­ment was pre­vi­ous­ly deemed ​“irrel­e­vant” and nev­er con­sid­ered dur­ing any of Mr. Menzies post-con­vic­tion appeals. That meant that the Pardons Board was the first to con­sid­er Judge Uno’s state­ment, and it was unpersuaded. 

Attorneys for Mr. Menzies also argue that his death sen­tence relies heav­i­ly on the tes­ti­mo­ny of anoth­er pris­on­er who was lat­er found to have per­jured him­self. According to Mr. Menzies’ peti­tion for com­mu­ta­tion, jail house infor­mant Walter Britton ​“false­ly tes­ti­fied” that ​“Mr. Menzies con­fessed to him” and that he had described to Mr. Britton in vivid detail some of the more grue­some aspects of the crime. Mr. Britton lat­er recant­ed and admit­ted that he had made up the sto­ry to obtain a reduc­tion in his sen­tence. Despite the recan­ta­tion, Mr. Britton’s tes­ti­mo­ny was cit­ed by the pros­e­cu­tor dur­ing the penal­ty phase of Mr. Menzies’ tri­al to show his lack of remorse. The Salt Lake City District Attorney’s Conviction Integrity Panel reviewed Mr. Menzies’ case and con­clud­ed that ​“it was and is fun­da­men­tal­ly unfair for the State to exe­cute a per­son if the judge’s deci­sion to impose death was, as it was in this case, based to any degree on per­jured tes­ti­mo­ny affect­ing one of the ele­ments the judge relied on most heav­i­ly to jus­ti­fy the sen­tence, where it is rea­son­ably like­ly that death would not have been imposed had he known the evi­dence was per­jured.” Again, the Pardons Board was unpersuaded. 

One of the fac­tors the Pardons Board also con­sid­ers is whether Mr. Menzies pos­es a risk of vio­lence to oth­ers such that com­mut­ing his sen­tence to Life Without Parole (LWOP) would pose a dan­ger to oth­er inmates or cor­rec­tions offi­cers. Ret. Captain Lyle Smith, a for­mer cor­rec­tions offi­cer, said he had ​“nev­er seen [Mr. Menzies] raise his tem­per” and he did not think Mr. Menzies ​“would ever strike out at anyone[.]” 

Separately, Mr. Menzies’ attor­neys are argu­ing before the Utah Supreme Court on August 21 that his demen­tia means he is incom­pe­tent to be exe­cut­ed. Executing indi­vid­u­als who fail to under­stand ratio­nal­ly why they are being exe­cut­ed is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. In the 1986 case Ford v. Wainwright, the U.S. Supreme Court artic­u­lat­ed that “[t]he test for whether a pris­on­er is insane for Eighth Amendment pur­pos­es is whether the pris­on­er is aware of his impend­ing exe­cu­tion and the rea­son for it.” In 2007, the Court clar­i­fied in Panetti v. Quarterman that aware­ness meant ​“aware­ness of a link between a crime and its pun­ish­ment in a con­text so far removed from real­i­ty that the pun­ish­ment can serve no proper purpose.” 

Mr. Menzies was con­vict­ed of the 1986 mur­der of Maurine Hunsaker. He is sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed by fir­ing squad on September 5, 2025. The last per­son to be exe­cut­ed in Utah was Taberon Dave Honie, who was exe­cut­ed by lethal injec­tion on August 8, 2024. His exe­cu­tion broke a four­teen-year pause in exe­cu­tions in the state, a pause which began in the wake of the 2010 exe­cu­tion by fir­ing squad of Ronnie Gardner.