Utah Supreme Court weighs whether dementia, phone calls and statutes justify new competency review for condemned inmate

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Supreme Court on Tuesday heard argument over whether the state may schedule the execution of Thomas Menzies while defense lawyers press for a new competency evaluation after what they say is a substantial, recent decline from dementia.

Lindsay Lair, counsel for Mr. Menzies, told the court that "the Eighth Amendment does not permit the State of Utah to execute a person who, because of advancing dementia, cannot rationally understand the meaning and purpose of his execution," and that new expert evaluations and a corrections employee declaration show such a decline. The state, represented by Daniel Boyer, said the rules for reopening competency proceedings are stricter for a second petition and the district court did not err in denying further relief.

Why it matters: The case raises whether the statutory test for a successive competency petition — that the petitioner "allege with specificity a substantial change in circumstances" and that the petition be "sufficient to raise a significant question" as to competency — permits reopening after a district court found Menzies competent on June 6. If the court orders new evaluations it could delay any warrant for execution; if it declines, the execution timeline could proceed subject to other stays.

Defense argument and evidence

Lindsay Lair said defense counsel submitted two recent expert reports, medical records, and a declaration from corrections case manager Stephanie Callahan documenting decline. Lair said two evaluators in late June found that Menzies "could not even articulate his charges," and that Callahan described a July 8 interaction in which Menzies "was just staring…