Read the complete AP News article, Utah Judge Schedules Execution by Firing Squad for a Man with Dementia

According to the article, a Utah judge recently set an execution date for a man with dementia who has been on death row for 37 years, even as his lawyers file appeals and argue his condition is worsening.

The Defendant: Ralph Leroy Menzies

Ralph Leroy Menzies, 67, is set to be executed on September 5 for abducting and killing Utah mother of three Maurine Hunsaker in 1986. When given a choice decades ago, Menzies selected a firing squad as his method of execution. He would become only the sixth U.S. prisoner executed by firing squad since 1977.

The Judge: Matthew Bates

Judge Matthew Bates signed the death warrant a month after he ruled Menzies “consistently and rationally” understands why he is facing execution despite recent cognitive decline. Attorneys for Menzies have petitioned the court for a reassessment, but Bates said recently that the pending appeal was not a basis to stop him from setting a date.

Bates did, however, schedule a July 23 hearing to evaluate the new competency petition. Menzies' attorneys say his dementia has gotten so severe that he uses a wheelchair, is dependent on oxygen and cannot understand his legal case.

“We remain hopeful that the courts or the clemency board will recognize the profound inhumanity of executing a man who is experiencing steep cognitive decline and significant memory loss,” said Lindsey Layer, an attorney for Menzies. “Taking the life of someone with a terminal illness who is no longer a threat to anyone and whose mind and identity have been overtaken by dementia serves neither justice nor human decency.”

The Utah Attorney General’s Office has “full confidence” in the judge's decision, Assistant Attorney General Daniel Boyer said.

The U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has at times spared prisoners with dementia from execution, including an Alabama man in 2019 who had killed a police officer. If a defendant cannot understand why they are being put to death, the high court said, then an execution is not carrying out the retribution that society is seeking.

For Hunsaker's son Matt, who was 10 years old when his mother was killed, it has been “hard to swallow that it’s taken this long” to get justice.

“You issue the warrant today, you start a process for our family,” he told the judge recently. “It puts everybody on the clock. We’ve now introduced another generation of my mom, and we still don’t have justice served.”

The Victim: Maurene Hunsaker

Hunsaker, 26, was abducted by Menzies from a convenience store where she worked in the Salt Lake City suburb of Kearns. She was later found strangled and her throat cut about 16 miles away at a picnic area in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Menzies had Hunsaker’s wallet and several other belongings when he was jailed on unrelated matters. He was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes in 1988.

Over nearly four decades, attorneys for Menzies filed multiple appeals that delayed his death sentence, which had been scheduled at least twice before it was pushed back. He and other Utah death row inmates sentenced before May 2004 were given a choice between firing squad and lethal injection. For inmates sentenced in the state after that date, lethal injection is the default method unless the drugs are unavailable.

Utah last executed prisoners by firing squad in 2010, and South Carolina used the method on two men this year. Only three other states — Idaho, Mississippi and Oklahoma — allow firing squad executions.

Menzies is among 10 people scheduled to be put to death in seven states during the remainder of 2025.

Twenty-five men in the U.S. have died by court-ordered execution so far this year.

Discussion Questions

  1. In terms of criminal law and procedure, when is the defendant’s mental state relevant?

    In terms of criminal law and procedure, the defendant’s mental state is relevant on three occasions: (a) when the defendant commits the crime (this establishes the defendant’s required mens rea, or mental state, for criminal culpability); (b) when the defendant is about to undergo trial (important from the standpoint of the defendant being provided with due process, including the defendant’s ability to assist their attorney in their representation; and (c) when the defendant is about to be subject to imposition of the death penalty (again, because of due process concerns).

  2. In your reasoned opinion, is carrying out an execution on a criminal defendant who has dementia “cruel and unusual” punishment and therefore a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Why or why not? Is it unethical? Why or why not?

    The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides:

    “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

    In essence, the Eighth Amendment addresses specific due process concerns.

    In your author’s opinion, the key question in this case is whether the defendant has the mental capacity to understand that he is about to be put to death for his commission of the subject crime. Arguably, that is a question (and answer) best left to the medical experts, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

  3. Does the U.S. Supreme Court have a legal obligation to intervene in this matter? Why or why not?

    In terms of procedure regarding death penalty cases, the U.S. Supreme Court is the last resort for defendants appealing their death sentence. The Court, however, only reviews a handful of death penalty cases each year. When a writ of certiorari (i.e., a request for review) is denied by the U.S. Supreme Court, the defendant has exhausted their appeals. Thereafter, the only relief available to the defendant is executive clemency (i.e., an act of mercy or leniency granted by a head of state, typically a president or governor, to individuals convicted of crimes, allowing for the reduction or elimination of their sentences).