Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Death Penalty topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances bill setting process to exclude mentally retarded from death penalty
Summary
After extended floor debate, the Utah Senate advanced Senate Bill 8 — a comprehensive response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on executing people with mental retardation — to the third‑reading calendar. The bill designates a judge to decide initial mental‑retardation claims and requires a preponderance‑of‑evidence showing by the defendant.
The Utah Senate on Feb. 4 advanced Senate Bill 8 to third reading after an extended floor debate over procedure and safeguards for capital cases involving claims of mental retardation.
Sponsor Senator Gladwell said the bill implements protections required by the U.S. Supreme Court and ‘‘incorporates those 11 areas that were agreed upon’’ by stakeholders including prosecutors, defense counsel and disability advocates. The bill creates a definition for mental retardation in the criminal context, requires a written notice and the appointment of two health experts to evaluate the defendant, and permits the court to stay proceedings while evaluations are completed. The bill provides that a judge, at the commencement of the case, makes the initial determination and that the defendant bears the burden to prove mental retardation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Senator Hilliard, who spoke at length on related protective‑order matters earlier in the session, raised procedural concerns and flagged two core policy issues carried into debate: whether a judge or a jury should make the initial determination and which party should bear the burden of proof. Hilliard said the bill ‘‘moves’’ determinations into a judge‑gatekeeper model but left room for amendment on the judge/jury question. Other senators—including members of the Judiciary Committee—commended the deliberative committee process and expressed a desire to refine technical language before final passage.
Senator Gladwell said the statute allows interlocutory appeals of the judge’s decision, and he emphasized that mental‑condition questions may be raised repeatedly through trial, penalty and appeal phases. After floor discussion and the sponsor’s request, the Senate voted to read the bill a third time and move it forward for final consideration.
Next steps include committee or floor amendments (several senators indicated they planned to offer targeted amendments), a final third‑reading vote and, if passed by both houses, presentation to the governor. The transcript contains several on‑the‑record procedural questions and policy explanations but no final amendments adopted on Feb. 4.
