The Utah Legislature is considering a bill with the intention of improving the state’s death penalty process, and if passed, could affect every death penalty case in the state, including the active case of Tyler Robinson, who is charged in the murder of Charlie Kirk.
The bill, HB495, sponsored by House Majority Whip Candice B. Pierucci, R-Herriman, would restructure the state’s death penalty system. It wouldn’t expand who receives the death penalty, but it would change the legal and procedural framework for capital cases.
House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, told the Deseret News he supports the bill because it would tighten timelines for these cases, which have historically taken decades to resolve.
He gave the example of convicted murderer Ralph Menzies, who was found guilty of killing 26-year-old Maurine Hunsaker in 1986. Though he died of natural causes in prison last November, his execution date was scheduled for September before it was postponed for further evaluation as to his competency.
“He was on death row for more than 37 years,” Schultz said. “It’s ridiculous,” adding that other states have implemented legislation that Utah is mirroring with this bill, seeking “to shorten that timeline to save taxpayer dollars, but still allow for the whole process to play out.”
Changes to the state’s capital punishment playbook
Aside from speeding up capital cases by reducing procedural ambiguity, it would also strengthen the state’s ability to defend death sentences on appeal. Meaning it’s attempting to “appeal-proof” death sentences by eliminating gray areas that defense attorneys could potentially raise years later — replacing them with fixed timelines and clearer appellate pathways.
It would also make drastic changes to intellectual disability determinations. So if prosecution seeks the death penalty in a case, “unless the defendant objects to the appointment, the court shall appoint a prescreening psychologist to determine the defendant’s intelligence quotient (IQ) using the procedures for determining intelligence quotient that are community, nationally, and culturally accepted at the time of appointment,” per the bill language.
If a defendant refuses the procedure, the right to claim intellectual disability is waived, but it can be argued as mitigation evidence in the sentencing portion of the trial.
If the procedure is carried out, the psychologist is then given 10 days to send the findings to the state. If a defendant’s IQ is above 75, capital punishment remains an option, but if it’s 75 or below, the court must order further expert evaluation.
The bill also seeks to establish clearer guidelines on when a court may issue a stay of execution and who has the authority to suspend execution, to ensure that, once review is complete, sentences can be carried out in an orderly and legally defensible way. However, critics may argue that tightening such rules could risk prioritizing finality over accuracy, especially when later-emerging evidence is possible.
Death penalty cases, including Robinson’s, almost always take years before reaching a verdict, sentencing and then additional years, like Menzies, of appeals. HB495 is designed to standardize and even accelerate stages of that timely process.
If Robinson is eventually sentenced to death and pursues post-conviction relief, the bill, if turned into law, could make that process harder for later claims to stall and extend the execution date.