One of Utah's most notorious death-row inmates says testimony from one of Utah's most high-profile kidnap cases, the abduction of Elizabeth Smart, could spring him from facing the death penalty.
In a third appearance before the Utah Supreme Court, an attorney for Ronald Lafferty claims a forensic psychologist who testified in 1997 that Lafferty was mentally competent to stand trial testified several years later in the case of Brian David Mitchell, charged in Smart's abduction, that he was not competent to stand trial under the same criteria.
William Morrison said given the new evidence, his client should never have stood trial in the case, in which he was convicted of capital murder and received the death sentence.
Lafferty, along with his brother, Dan Lafferty, were convicted in separate trials of murdering their sister-in-law, Brenda Lafferty, and her 15-month-old daughter, Erica, on July 24, 1984. Both victims were found with their throats slit by what police say was a barber's razor. Police say the murders were a case of misguided religious revelation. Dan Lafferty was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
After being found guilty and sentenced to death in 1985, Ron Lafferty initially won a retrial but was once again found guilty and sentenced to death in 1997.
During oral arguments Thursday, Morrison said a forensic psychologist had testified that under the concept of "situational competence" Lafferty could stand trial. Years later in the Mitchell case, the same said Mitchell was not competent under the same concept. Morrison said this is evidence that psychology science was changed and that Lafferty was evaluated under methods that are now "outmoded."
Justices pointed out that the expert testimony was from one of three psychologists, who all found him competent. Also, the law states that new evidence had to exist at the time of trial in order to be introduced later.
Lafferty also claims his defense attorney had a conflict of interest because he had represented his brother, Dan, in a separate trial several years prior. The same attorney then questioned Dan Lafferty on the witness stand in Ron Lafferty's trial, where Dan took full responsibility for the actual slayings.
Justices said it appeared to them that Dan Lafferty's testimony proved beneficial for Ron and did not appear detrimental in any way.
Assistant Utah Attorney General Thomas Brunker said this is a 22-year-old murder case in which Ron Lafferty has been given $22,000 by the state to investigate appeals issues. After years of bringing claims since his second trial, Brunker argued that Lafferty has yet to raise a legitimate claim on appeal.
Brunker said Morrison has misinterpreted the psychologist's testimony and said the psychologist had compared Lafferty to Mitchell in that Lafferty's competency could be mitigated by dealing with his "personality disorder" to be competent, while in Mitchell's case, not even medication would work.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a written ruling in the coming months. Lafferty's case is one of the oldest death row cases in Utah, next to the death penalty conviction of Douglas Carter in 1985 and Ronnie Lee Gardner's death sentence in 1986.
E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com