Opinion ID: 865371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying king

Text: THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE THE STATE’S EVIDENCE REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF LELA PATTERSON’S ACTUAL KILLER. ¶46. King asserts that the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion in limine, which sought to prevent King from arguing that he did not kill Patterson at trial. King argues that the trial court’s reasoning that this argument was tantamount to relitigating the issue of guilt fails because Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(2)(e) permits a person to be convicted of capital 34 murder even if he was only an accomplice to the killing. Therefore, King asserts that his argument that he was not the killer is not the same as making an argument of innocence. Additionally, King submits that evidence that someone other than King killed Patterson is relevant to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances considered by the jury in making its sentencing determination. Further, King argues that his constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment requires the sentencing determination to be made only after considering any and all evidence regarding the circumstances of his crime, and thus, he was deprived of his constitutional rights when he was precluded from presenting evidence of Patterson’s “actual killer.” ¶47. This Court has held that arguing residual doubt concerning a defendant’s guilt on resentencing constitutes res judicata, and thus is procedurally barred. “Our caselaw holds that in an appeal from a resentencing trial for capital murder, the issue of guilt is res judicata and cannot be relitigated.” Irving v. State, 441 So. 2d 846, 851-52 (Miss. 1983). Quoting Irving, 441 So. 2d at 849, this Court in Holland v. State, 705 So. 2d 307 (Miss. 1997) stated: In that the conviction by the first jury was not disturbed on appeal, the present sentencing jury was prohibited by the doctrine of res judicata from relitigating the issue of guilty (sic). Rather, the second jury’s function was to accept the first jury’s finding that Irving was guilty of felony-murder involving robbery and then to determine sentence. Id. at 322-323. This Court held that no residual doubt could be argued since the underlying conviction had already been affirmed on appeal. Id. Further, the United States Supreme Court, in Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517, 126 S. Ct. 1226, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1112, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 1818 (U.S. 2006), held: 35 The Eighth Amendment insists upon “‘reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case.’” Penry, supra, at 328, 109 S. Ct. 2934, 106 L. Ed. 2d 256 (quoting Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 305, 96 S. Ct. 2978, 49 L. Ed. 2d 944 (1976) (plurality opinion)). The Eighth Amendment also insists that a sentencing jury be able “to consider and give effect to mitigating evidence” about the defendant’s “character or record or the circumstances of the offense.” Penry, supra, at 327-328, 109 S. Ct. 2934, 106 L. Ed. 2d 256. But the Eighth Amendment does not deprive the State of its authority to set reasonable limits upon the evidence a defendant can submit, and to control the manner in which it is submitted. Rather, “States are free to structure and shape consideration of mitigating evidence ‘in an effort to achieve a more rational and equitable administration of the death penalty.’” Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 377, 110 S. Ct. 1190, 108 L. Ed. 2d 316 (1990) (quoting Franklin, supra, at 181, 108 S. Ct. 2320, 101 L. Ed. 2d 155 (plurality opinion)). Id. at 525-526. (Emphasis added). The issue in Guzek was whether Oregon could limit the innocence-related evidence that a defendant sought to introduce at a sentencing proceeding. In holding that the Oregon Supreme Court was wrong in vacating Guzek’s sentence for aggravated murder because he had the right to present alibi evidence as “relevant mitigating evidence” in the sentencing proceeding, the Supreme Court stated: Three circumstances, taken together, convince us that the State possesses the authority to regulate, through exclusion, the evidence that Guzek seeks to present. First, sentencing traditionally concerns how, not whether, a defendant committed the crime. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 1A1.1, editorial note, § 4(a), p. 4 (Nov. 2004). But the evidence at issue here – alibi evidence – concerns only whether, not how, he did so. Second, the parties previously litigated the issue to which the evidence is relevant – whether the defendant committed the basic crime. The evidence thereby attacks a previously determined matter in a proceeding at which, in principle, that matter is not at issue. The law typically discourages collateral attacks of this kind. Cf. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S. Ct. 411, 66 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1980) (“As this Court and other courts have often recognized, res judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication”). 36 Third, the negative impact of a rule restricting defendant’s ability to introduce new alibi evidence is minimized by the fact that Oregon law gives the defendant the right to present to the sentencing jury all the evidence of innocence from the original trial regardless. That law permits the defendant to introduce at resentencing transcripts and exhibits from his prior trial. Ore. Rev. Stat. § 138.012(2)(b) (2003). The defendant here has not claimed that the evidence at issue was unavailable at the time of his original trial. Thus, he need only have introduced it at that time to guarantee its presentation (albeit through transcripts) to a resentencing jury as well. Id. at 17-19. ¶48. Therefore, King’s argument that he should have been permitted to introduce evidence that he was not Patterson’s killer fails. In light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Guzek and our holding as to residual doubt in Holland, we find that King cannot make an argument as to his guilt at a resentencing trial. Accordingly, this issue is procedurally barred from further consideration under the doctrine of res judicata. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3) (Rev. 2000).