House committee advances bill tightening timelines for capital felony reviews
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee advanced HB 495, a package of changes to capital-felony procedure that would require early prescreening for intellectual disability, set tight deadlines for competency evaluations and alter appellate jurisdiction to speed post-conviction review. Supporters said it reduces decades-long delays; critics warned it risks constitutional conflict and rushed outcomes.
Representative Pucci opened testimony on House Bill 495, telling the Judiciary Committee the measure "is about process" rather than the morality of capital punishment and that it aims to shorten Utah's lengthy post-conviction timelines.
The bill would require an early prescreening for intellectual disability — including an IQ test — and would trigger a hearing if the prescreening score is 75 or lower. William Haynes of the attorney general's office described the design as reflecting U.S. Supreme Court guidance, saying the prescreening "would establish... whether the defendant has significant subaverage intellectual functioning" and that the bill allows defendants to present evidence to rebut a prescreening that shows 76 or higher.
HB 495 also clarifies and narrows some direct-appeal jurisdiction: claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal in capital cases would generally be routed to separate post-conviction proceedings, the bill would require appointment of post-conviction counsel within 30 days of the end of appeal, maintain a list of qualified counsel, and increase compensation for appointed attorneys to help meet federal standards for expedited habeas review. Sponsor Pucci told the committee the changes are intended to help Utah qualify for federal expedited review, which the attorney general described as a federal process that still allows up to 450 days for federal habeas consideration.
On competency-to-be-executed issues, the bill would: align Utah's competency standard with Supreme Court precedent, limit competency challenges to the period after a death warrant is issued, generally prohibit new competency petitions within 21 days of execution unless supported by a physician or psychologist affidavit and good cause, require competency evaluations to be completed within 30 days, and set hearing windows five to 15 days after evaluation completion.
Witnesses were sharply divided. Mark Moffett of the Utah Defense Lawyers Association urged the committee to hold the bill, warning that accelerating timelines "when you accelerate this process, you remove the ability... to find out" important errors in old cases. Erin Bigler, a mitigation professional with the Salt Lake Public Defender's Office, argued the proposed 75 cutoff and expedited timeline risk running afoul of Hall v. Florida and other precedent because intellectual-disability determinations require assessment of adaptive functioning and developmental history.
Proponents, including Scott Burns of the Utah Sheriffs Association and several prosecutors, said the status quo has imposed intolerable delays on victims and their families. "It is time to acknowledge that...36 years of someone sitting on death row is justice delayed," Burns said, arguing the bill balances review with finality.
Representative Shepherd moved the bill with a favorable recommendation and Representative Hall successfully moved to adopt Substitute 1. The committee voted to move HB 495 to the floor on the substitute (8–2); Representatives Stoddard and Holland recorded opposition.
The committee placed several requests on the record: the sponsor said staff would provide additional state comparisons and a fiscal estimate on potential cost savings, and the attorney general's office noted aspects of the bill could be subject to future legal challenge. The bill is now scheduled for floor consideration with the committee substitute.