Attorney Lindsay Layer speaks with Ralph Leroy Menzies after the first day of his competency hearing in 3rd District Court in West Jordan, Monday, Nov. 18, 2024. (Pool photo by Rick Egan/The Salt Lake Tribune )

Medical experts commissioned by the state say Utah death row inmate Ralph Menzies is competent enough to be executed — medical experts commissioned by Menzies’ lawyers say that’s not the case.

So far, a handful of experts have testified about Menzies’ mental state. But there is still no consensus on whether the 65-year-old convicted dementia killer is competent enough to be executed by firing squad.

Ultimately, 3rd District Court Judge Matthew Bates will decide.

To meet this standard, Menzies must be aware of his impending execution and understand that his murder conviction is the reason. Menzies’ lawyers say the requirement goes further: He must connect his crime to the punishment, and understand that Hunsaker’s murder was particularly heinous, even compared to other killings.

Menzies was sentenced to death in 1988 for kidnapping Maurine Hunsaker, who was working at a gas station in Kearns at the time, and taking her to Big Cottonwood Canyon. She was later found tied to a tree with her throat slit.

On Wednesday, five medical experts who evaluated Menzies testified: three neuropsychologists, a neurologist and a forensic psychologist. And while all agree that Menzies is in some way cognitively impaired, whether he is competent enough to face execution is another story.

Michael Brooks, a forensic psychologist with the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, and Ryan Green, a neuropsychologist hired by the state, say Menzies is competent. And both were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by Menzies’ lawyers.

Brooks determined Menzies was competent to be executed after evaluating him twice in the past year.

“He understands that an execution is taking place, he understands that it is taking place for murder… he knows that ‘the state wants to kill me because I killed a person and killing people is wrong,’” Brooks said in court Tuesday.

During his evaluation, Brooks said Menzies gave him the wrong date, made mistakes when asked to repeat a sentence, spoke of auditory and visual hallucinations, used “filler words” and vague terms when he spoke about his case and had a severe headache.

Menzies often forgets to shower, telling Brooks that his fellow inmates were complaining about his body odor. He remembers being convicted 50 years ago (he was convicted in 1988, 36 years ago), although he did not remember the sentencing hearing or the judge’s rationale, and had “trouble” remembering basic details about Maurine Hunsaker. He admitted that he got angry easily and sometimes forgot what he was talking about, but he didn’t know why.

When asked why he was at risk of execution, Menzies would say things like, “I’m not guilty and it’s wrong to kill me,” “because I’m worthless,” or “I don’t know.” They say I killed a person. I don’t really think it’s society. I think people just want to make a name for themselves,” according to Brooks’ testimony.

Menzies’ lawyer, Eric Zuckerman, said his answers did not demonstrate an understanding of the two main motivations behind the death penalty: deterrence and retribution. Nor do his responses suggest that Menzies understood why Hunsaker’s murder warranted the death penalty.

“He was never able, with you, to express the idea that his death sentence was linked to the seriousness of the crime, and not just to the fact that he had committed murder? » asked Zuckerman.

“That’s right,” Brooks replied.

But Brooks told the court the assessment itself was likely stressful for Menzies, putting him under pressure and impacting his memory and ability to think clearly. Under questioning by the state’s attorney, Brooks said Menzies still understood the basic facts surrounding his case.

“He knows all the material facts of the crime and… he knows he’s going to be killed and why?” asked Andrew Peterson of the Utah Attorney General’s Office, to which Brooks responded “yes.”

Subscribe: Get morning headlines delivered to your inbox

Green, the neuropsychologist, spent two eight-hour days with Menzies during his evaluation and, like Brooks, came to a similar conclusion.

“The individual must understand the crime they committed and the rational connection to the punishment for that crime,” Green said. “I concluded that he was competent.”

During the evaluation, Menzies gave Green a tour of his cell, showed him his tablet that he uses to manage his finances and listen to the radio, and talked about his prison duties, which include supervising the laundry room. .

“Cognitively, he was a relatively high-functioning person,” said Green, who, unlike other medical professionals, did not believe Menzies suffered from a “major neurocognitive disorder” like vascular dementia. “I have not noticed any inability to participate in activities of daily living,” he said.

Zuckerman, when he interviewed Green, disputed that diagnosis — just because Menzies can use his tablet or organize the laundry room doesn’t mean he goes about his basic daily activities without problem. Zuckerman pointed to other reports and testimony from prison staff that suggest Menzies’ cognitive health is in steady decline.

“He said he didn’t run the washing machines anymore because he forgot how they worked, didn’t he? » asked Zuckerman. “Forgetting how to operate or forgetting how to use tools, that was one of those examples of major neurocognitive disorders, right?”

If Menzies is determined to be competent, he could be executed by firing squad in the spring. He will likely be able to appeal his case to the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole, but the competency hearing is the last major hurdle for the state.

In Utah, death row inmates sentenced before May 2004 had the choice between lethal injection and the firing squad. For those convicted after 2004, the default method of execution is lethal injection, unless the necessary drugs are unavailable.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE