Opinion ID: 1913318
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: in denying holland's motion for a criminal history of the victim?

Text: ¶ 12. The crucial question presented in issues two through eight is whether Holland is barred from reintroducing evidence to dispute guilt at the sentencing phase, to rebut aggravators offered by the prosecution, to dispute the Enmund factors which the prosecution must prove for imposition of the death penalty, or to support an argument on residual doubt. ¶ 13. In a pre-trial motion, Holland asked the Court to refrain from directing a verdict in connection with the underlying crime of rape. At this motion hearing, the trial judge ruled that there would not be a directed verdict on the aggravating circumstance of rape. However, the trial judge made it clear that his ruling would not preclude the State in revisiting the totality of the [defendant's] acts during the commission of the crime to show the killing and the rape so that a rational sentencing body can make that decision of death or life imprisonment. The trial court's ruling applied to the testimony of witnesses and the introduction of the judgment of guilt of capital murder. But, the trial court held that he would not allow relitigation of the guilty verdict, which was res judicata. ¶ 14. Holland's counsel objected to this procedure, arguing that any State's evidence introduced must address one of the aggravating circumstances. See Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645, 655 (Miss. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084, 104 S.Ct. 1455, 79 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984). Furthermore, Holland argued that he should be allowed to rebut any evidence of the State, including the rape charge. Holland claims that the rebuttal of the testimony relating to the rape charge would allow him the benefit of any residual doubt that the jury might have concerning the rape. These rulings of the trial judge were in response to motions of the defense, and were not sua sponte actions of the trial court. ¶ 15. At trial, the State presented witnesses who described the murder and rape of Krystal King, including the officers to whom Holland made confessions. Holland cross-examined all of these witnesses. The defense objected to the testimony of the State's witness, Dr. Paul McGarry, a pathologist, on the ground that he would testify to matters outside his area of expertise and engage in speculation, when he described the injuries to Krystal's vagina and rectum. The trial judge overruled the objection, accepting McGarry's testimony as an expert within his field of knowledge. Dr. McGarry testified as to the forceful, jagged cuts around the victim's genital area, as well as other injuries, and to the source of some of those injuries, which he stated as being a human penis. Holland attempted to rebut Dr. McGarry's testimony with the proffered testimony of Dr. Leroy Riddick, a forensic pathologist, who disputed the State's contention about the source of the injuries and the presence of seminal fluid in Krystal, as well as the assertion that the victim experienced a long period of pain and suffering. Dr. Riddick also testified regarding the absence of seminal fluid in the victim's body. Dr. Riddick's testimony was not allowed into evidence by the trial court, although he was allowed to proffer his testimony. ¶ 16. Here, we are asked to determine whether Holland is entitled to relitigate the question of guilt at the sentencing phase. The State must prove the existence of aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-103 (1994 rev.); see also Holland v. State, 587 So.2d 848, 874 (Miss. 1991). In addition, the State must prove one of four factors [1] which show that the defendant generally intended to kill his victim. However, Mississippi law is silent concerning the ability of a defendant to introduce rebuttal evidence on those factors before a resentencing jury, in essence relitigating the guilt phase once more. ¶ 17. Relying on United States Supreme Court precedent, this Court has held that the capital sentencer may not be prohibited from considering any aspect of the defendant's character or any circumstance of the offense. Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365, 371 (Miss. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 934, 109 S.Ct. 330, 102 L.Ed.2d 348 (1988), reh'g denied, 488 U.S. 1023, 109 S.Ct. 826, 102 L.Ed.2d 815 (1989). However, this Court also stated that the trial court could exclude as irrelevant evidence which does not apply to the defendant or to the circumstances of the crime. Cole, 525 So.2d at 371. 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), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1059, 105 S.Ct. 1774, 84 L.Ed.2d 834 (1985), reh'g denied, 471 U.S. 1095, 105 S.Ct. 2170, 85 L.Ed.2d 527 (1985), abrogated on other grounds by Willie v. State, 585 So.2d 660 (Miss. 1991); see also Jordan v. State, 518 So.2d 1186, 1189 (Miss. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 818, 109 S.Ct. 57, 102 L.Ed.2d 35 (1988). ¶ 18. Holland urges this Court to read Irving more narrowly. Holland argues that Irving merely states that a defendant at a capital sentencing retrial is not entitled to an instruction listing the elements of an aggravating circumstance that was the underlying felony found at his guilt-innocence phase. ¶ 19. Holland's statement of Irving is accurate. However, the Irving Court reaches its decision by stating the following: 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. Irving, 441 So.2d at 849. ¶ 20. Holland argues that the lower court erred in prohibiting him from using evidence from the guilt phase at the sentencing phase of his trial. The defendant is limited to introducing evidence relevant to his sentence. Jackson v. State, 337 So.2d 1242, 1256 (Miss. 1976), superseded by statute on unrelated grounds as recognized by Gray v. State, 351 So.2d 1342, 1349 (Miss. 1977). ¶ 21. Holland argues that our caselaw requires resentencing proceedings to relitigate the question of guilt, citing West v. State, 519 So.2d 418, 425 (Miss. 1988). [2] Holland's reliance on West is misplaced, as this Court reversed the entire conviction in West, not merely the sentencing phase alone. West, 519 So.2d at 424-25. [3] See also, Williams v. State, 684 So.2d 1179 (Miss. 1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1317, 137 L.Ed.2d 479 (1997). The Williams court stated, The only issue was the manner of punishment that Williams should receive. Mississippi case law states that in an appeal from a resentencing trial for capital murder, the issue of guilt is res judicata. Williams, 684 So.2d at 1188, citing Irving, 441 So.2d at 851-52. ¶ 22. Other states' caselaw splits as to whether the defendant is permitted to introduce evidence of innocence at sentencing, whether on collateral estoppel or any other ground. California, among other states, prohibits the introduction of this evidence. People v. Haskett, 30 Cal.3d 841, 180 Cal. Rptr. 640, 656, 640 P.2d 776, 792 (1982) (stating he [defendant] had no right to attack `the legality of the prior adjudication... .' We found `self-evident' the proposition that attempts to relitigate a prior finding of guilt are prohibited.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 822, 112 S.Ct. 83, 116 L.Ed.2d 56 (1991); see Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474, 477 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990) (approving statutory procedure allowing jury to consider aggravator proved beyond a reasonable doubt at sentencing, if used at trial to reach conviction), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886, 112 S.Ct. 242, 116 L.Ed.2d 197 (1991); State v. Biegenwald, 106 N.J. 13, 524 A.2d 130, 160 (1987) (stating [r]etrial of issues relevant only to guilt is not permitted.); Stockton v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 192, 402 S.E.2d 196, 207 (1991) (holding defendant not allowed to present evidence of innocence in penalty phase), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 902, 112 S.Ct. 280, 116 L.Ed.2d 231 (1991). ¶ 23. On the other hand, other states disapprove of any prohibition of evidence of innocence at sentencing. Blankenship v. State, 251 Ga. 621, 308 S.E.2d 369, 371 (1983), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 183, 102 L.Ed.2d 152 (1988); State v. Stewart, 288 S.C. 232, 341 S.E.2d 789, 790 (1986). The Georgia Supreme Court has stated that such information bearing on innocence at sentencing is particularly valuable when a re-sentencing occurs and a new jury is empaneled which did not hear the evidence in the guilt phase. Romine v. State, 256 Ga. 521, 350 S.E.2d 446, 453 (1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1024, 107 S.Ct. 1912, 95 L.Ed.2d 517 (1987), reh'g denied, 484 U.S. 1048, 108 S.Ct. 788, 98 L.Ed.2d 873 (1988). ¶ 24. Federal caselaw also splits on this subject. The United States Supreme Court generally permits a defendant to introduce any relevant mitigating evidence available. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 113-14, 102 S.Ct. 869, 876-77, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982) (allowing use of troubled childhood as mitigating evidence at sentencing), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1051, 105 S.Ct. 1750, 84 L.Ed.2d 814 (1985); Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 U.S. 633, 637, 97 S.Ct. 1993, 1995, 52 L.Ed.2d 637 (1977) (requiring certain mitigating evidence to be introduced). ¶ 25. The Supreme Court has also stated that a defendant must be allowed to rebut or defend against evidence introduced against him generally. Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 5 n. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 1671 n. 1, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (permitting defendant to submit rebuttal evidence of behavior in prison to counter State's charges of defendant as bad prisoner). It should be noted that in Eddings, Roberts, Simmons, and Skipper, the evidence submitted was clearly offered as mitigation evidence, whereas Holland boldly proclaims his purpose is to attack the prior finding and adjudication of guilt. Such attempt to cast doubt on Holland's prior finding of guilt, which was affirmed on appeal by this Court, is not at all, in the strictest sense, a mitigating factor. ¶ 26. In its landmark opinion permitting the death penalty, the Supreme Court gave a list of relevant mitigating factors, but the direct question of innocence or guilt was not among them. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 193 n. 44, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2935, n. 44, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976). [4] Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that mandatory presumptions violate the Fourteenth Amendment by relieving the State of the burden of proving the elements of the aggravators. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 280, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2082, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993). ¶ 27. The Supreme Court has stated, [T]his Court has never held that a capital defendant has a constitutional right to an instruction telling the jury to revisit the question of his identity as the murderer as a basis for mitigation. Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 172-73, 108 S.Ct. 2320, 2327, 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988), reh'g denied, 487 U.S. 1263, 109 S.Ct. 25, 101 L.Ed.2d 976 (1988). The Court also held that doubts on identity, even residual ones, do not relate to mitigating evidence concerning the character, record, or circumstances of the offense. Franklin, 487 U.S. at 174, 108 S.Ct. at 2327-28. The Court also approved of the overlap between a finding of guilt in an underlying felony supporting a capital offense and the reuse of that felony to prove an aggravator in the sentencing phase. Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 241-46, 108 S.Ct. 546, 553-55, 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988), reh'g denied, 485 U.S. 944, 108 S.Ct. 1126, 99 L.Ed.2d 286 (1988). This Court has denied residual doubt as a mitigating factor. Minnick v. State, 551 So.2d 77 (Miss. 1988), rev'd on other grounds, 498 U.S. 146, 111 S.Ct. 486, 112 L.Ed.2d 489 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Willie v. State, 585 So.2d 660 (Miss. 1991). ¶ 28. As to the principle of collateral estoppel in criminal cases, the Supreme Court has thus far only allowed its use in acquittals, where the principle was applied in conjunction with double jeopardy to bar reprosecutions for the same offense. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 444-45, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194-95, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). The United States Supreme Court has stated that the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to separate trials, but not guilt and punishment phases of the same trial. Schiro v. Farley, 510 U.S. 222, 231, 114 S.Ct. 783, 790, 127 L.Ed.2d 47(1994), reh'g denied, 510 U.S. 1215, 114 S.Ct. 1341, 127 L.Ed.2d 688 (1994). [5] However, the Schiro Court was not called upon to consider collateral estoppel against the defendant, but only the prosecution. Schiro, 510 U.S. at 231, 114 S.Ct. at 790. The Supreme Court has yet to answer whether collateral estoppel applies to bar the defense from relitigating an issue, as opposed to the government. [6] ¶ 29. At least one lower federal court requires the sentencing jury to hear evidence supporting innocence. Chaney v. Brown, 730 F.2d 1334, 1351-52 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1090, 105 S.Ct. 601, 83 L.Ed.2d 710 (1984). Lower federal courts split over the general issue of collateral estoppel barring relitigation of findings of guilt by a jury. Some federal courts prohibit such evidence. United States v. Pelullo, 14 F.3d 881, 896 (3rd Cir.1994), rev'd on other grounds, 105 F.3d 117 (3rd Cir.1997); United States v. Harnage, 976 F.2d 633, 635 (11th Cir.1992) (holding collateral estoppel should not be applied to criminal defendant); Flittie v. Solem, 775 F.2d 933, 940 (8th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1025, 106 S.Ct. 1223, 89 L.Ed.2d 333 (1986). ¶ 30. However, other courts have permitted evidence of findings of guilt to collaterally estop the defendant in later proceedings. Hernandez-Uribe v. United States, 515 F.2d 20, 21-22 (8th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1057, 96 S.Ct. 791, 46 L.Ed.2d 647 (1976); United States v. Colacurcio, 514 F.2d 1, 6 (9th Cir.1975). We adopt the logic of Hernandez-Uribe We hold that because of the finding of guilt by the prior jury, Holland is barred by res judicata from relitigating the prior jury verdict of guilt and is collaterally estopped in these proceedings from attacking his guilt. ¶ 31. Holland argues that our caselaw requires the trial court to permit his presentation of evidence on whimsical or residual doubt. Our caselaw has prohibited counsel from doing more than asserting whimsical doubt at closing argument. This Court has rejected a defendant's submission of a whimsical doubt jury instruction. Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 150-51 (Miss. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 921, 112 S.Ct. 1970, 118 L.Ed.2d 570 (1992), reh'g denied, 505 U.S. 1231, 112 S.Ct. 3060, 120 L.Ed.2d 924 (1992). Other states are split on the subject. Florida expressly prohibits the submission of evidence on whimsical doubt. King v. State, 514 So.2d 354, 358 (Fla. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S.Ct. 2916, 101 L.Ed.2d 947 (1988); see also Ruiz v. State, 299 Ark. 144, 772 S.W.2d 297, 308 (1989); People v. Fields, 135 Ill.2d 18, 142 Ill.Dec. 200, 222, 552 N.E.2d 791, 813 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881, 111 S.Ct. 227, 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990), reh'g denied, 498 U.S. 994, 111 S.Ct. 547, 112 L.Ed.2d 555 (1990). Other states allow argument on residual doubt. See, e.g., Moon v. State, 258 Ga. 748, 375 S.E.2d 442, 452 (1988), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 982, 111 S.Ct. 1638, 113 L.Ed.2d 733 (1991), reh'g denied, 501 U.S. 1224, 111 S.Ct. 2841, 115 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1991); State v. Tyler, 50 Ohio St.3d 24, 553 N.E.2d 576, 583 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951, 111 S.Ct. 371, 112 L.Ed.2d 334 (1990). ¶ 32. The United States Supreme Court states that defendants have no constitutional right to reconsideration of residual doubt on sentencing. Franklin, 487 U.S. at 174, 108 S.Ct. at 2327-28. The Franklin Court noted such a right would be inconsistent with penalty-only trials, such as resentencings, which are not themselves violative of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 173 n. 6, 108 S.Ct. at 2327 n. 6. ¶ 33. Most federal courts generally follow Franklin. Evans v. Thompson, 881 F.2d 117, 120 (4th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1010, 110 S.Ct. 3255, 111 L.Ed.2d 764 (1990); Coleman v. Saffle, 869 F.2d 1377, 1393 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1090, 110 S.Ct. 1835, 108 L.Ed.2d 964 (1990), reh'g denied, 496 U.S. 913, 110 S.Ct. 2606, 110 L.Ed.2d 285 (1990). However, the Fifth Circuit has implied such evidence may be relevant at sentencing. Lindsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034, 1042 (5th Cir.1985). ¶ 34. Holland argues that the trial court's refusal to allow him to relitigate these issues of guilt denied him the right to argue whimsical or residual doubt as to the validity of the conviction. Holland relies on Hansen, 592 So.2d at 150-51 and Minnick, 551 So.2d 77, for the proposition that he was entitled to, but was denied the right to argue whimsical doubt to the jury. ¶ 35. The Supreme Court in Franklin, supra, has held that arguing that residual doubt was not a mitigating factor as it did not go to the issue of a defendant's character, record, or circumstances of the offense, but only to doubt about a defendant's guilt, which is not in the strictest sense, a mitigating factor. Franklin, 487 U.S. at 174, 108 S.Ct. at 2327-28. The Supreme Court further analyzed this holding in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 315-319, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 2945-2947, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989). ¶ 36. In the case at bar, there is no residual doubt that could be argued. This Court has already affirmed Holland's conviction of capital murder committed while engaged in the underlying felony of rape. Accordingly, this Court's prior affirmance of guilt precludes any residual or whimsical doubt as to the validity of Holland's conviction. [7] We hold that there can be no error in denying Holland the right to argue residual or whimsical doubt, since it is not a mitigating factor that is constitutionally recognized. ¶ 37. We must not confuse what is valid, relevant mitigating evidence with evidence utilized to attack the prior verdict and affirmance of guilt. All of the evidence proposed in Holland's proffer is nothing more than an attempt to attack Holland's prior conviction, which was affirmed by this Court. In Minnick v. State, supra , in considering the defendant's refused jury instruction, which read: The Court instructs the jury that if you have any whimsical doubt then that is a mitigating circumstance, this Court stated: In refusing the instruction, the trial court told defense counsel that he could argue whimsical or residual doubt to the jury if he chose, which defense counsel did. Minnick cites Smith v. Wainwright, 741 F.2d 1248 (11th Cir.1984), as support for his proposition. While that case acknowledges that a whimsical doubt might inure to the benefit of a defendant, the opinion does not say that the jury needs to be instructed on whimsical doubt as a mitigating factor. In fact, this discussion was in the context of the court considering an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and, tangentially, the ramifications of a single jury sitting for both phases of a capital trial. In a later Fifth Circuit case, Johnson v. Thigpen, 806 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir. 1986), the Fifth Circuit again considered whimsical doubt in terms of such being a beneficial byproduct of the same jury sitting for both phases of the trial. Id. at 1251. That discussion was in the context of what limitations may be imposed on defense counsel's argument so as not to impair the jury's consideration of residual doubt. No discussion of a jury instruction appears in this opinion. (emphasis added). Minnick, 551 So.2d at 95. ¶ 38. It is clear that while this Court, and many others, allow residual doubt argument, the United States Supreme Court, and this Court, do not permit defendants such as Holland to go further with the submission of jury instruction or evidence on residual doubt. ¶ 39. There is very little factual information to which to apply this caselaw. This question is primarily one of law. However, the trial court's ruling affected Holland's defense in at least three ways: (1) Holland stated that he would have testified himself and that the trial court's ruling chilled his right to testify; (2) Holland would have put on a serologist to dispute the State's findings concerning seminal fluid in Krystal, in that the serologist would have stated that the State's finding of acid phosphatase do not necessarily mean seminal fluid was present; and (3) Holland would have put Dr. Leroy Riddick on the stand to dispute Dr. McGarry's findings of rape. ¶ 40. In summary, while the question of whether Holland should be allowed to relitigate his guilt, in order to allow him to rebut evidence at sentencing, is very close, the distinction here is between introducing valid mitigating evidence in the sentencing phase and introducing evidence that challenges the guilty verdict of the original jury. The evidence Holland proffered is nothing more than an attack upon the prior finding of guilt by the first jury, which was affirmed by this Court. We hold that Holland's proffered evidence is not proper mitigation evidence, that he may not argue residual or whimsical doubt to a re-sentencing jury, and that he is collaterally estopped because of the prior finding of guilt affirmed by this Court. To allow the prior verdict to be challenged in this manner is a failure to recognize that this proceeding is actually a totally separate second phase hearing, except that Holland has already been convicted of capital murder committed during the course of the rape of Krystal King and this re-sentencing jury has knowledge that Holland was previously adjudged guilty of that crime. The re-sentencing jury is allowed to rely upon that prior conviction as sufficient. ¶ 41. As for residual doubt, because Holland is not entitled to a jury instruction on such a doubt, Holland is not entitled to present evidence on such a doubt. Hansen, 592 So.2d at 150-51. ¶ 42. Regarding whether the trial court in fact directed a verdict against Holland, he correctly asserts that caselaw prohibits a directed verdict against a criminal defendant. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 277, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2080, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) (holding such jury instructions not harmless error). Holland asserts that the exclusion of his exculpatory evidence at sentencing rendered a de facto directed verdict against him on the Enmund factors and the rape aggravator. Holland also asserts that the State should not be able to introduce all of the evidence at trial once again without allowing the defendant to rebut this evidence. ¶ 43. Our caselaw requires the State to prove at least one of the Enmund factors regarding intent to kill. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(7) (1994 rev.). This requirement necessarily forces the State to include evidence impacting on guilt, which the jury could nevertheless find insufficient to impose death, despite the defendant's conviction. Biegenwald, 524 A.2d at 160-61. On the other hand, the State could elect to stand on the prior conviction. Mississippi allows the State to stand on its conviction or reintroduce the evidence in the guilt phase. Jackson, 337 So.2d at 1256; see also Hill v. State, 432 So.2d 427, 441 (Miss. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 977, 104 S.Ct. 414, 78 L.Ed.2d 352 (1983). ¶ 44. Here, contrary to Holland's claim, the trial court clearly ruled that there would be no directed verdict on the issue of murder during the commission of a rape and that Holland actually killed the victim. This allegation of error is but an attempt by Holland to mischaracterize the trial court's ruling. We hold that Holland did not suffer a directed verdict on these issues and that the State is permitted to introduce evidence of guilt, without rebuttal of that evidence because of res judicata. Irving, 441 So.2d at 851-52. Retrial of issues only to guilt is not permitted. Williams, 684 So.2d at 1192, citing Biegenwald, 524 A.2d at 158-61. ¶ 45. Holland also argues that the refusal to admit Canfield's testimony on the ground of res judicata violates compulsory process rights, the Confrontation Clause, fair trial, due process and equal protection of law guarantees, and his rights under the Eighth Amendment. ¶ 46. The trial court judge excluded Dr. Canfield's testimony on the grounds that, as a matter of law, this exculpatory testimony attacking the question of rape was barred in the sentencing hearing. Dr. Canfield would have testified that he found no acid phosphatase in testing vaginal swabs from Krystal, indicating that no semen was present, and therefore, that no rape occurred. ¶ 47. The standard of review would, therefore, be de novo. Bank of Mississippi v. Hollingsworth, 609 So.2d 422, 424 (Miss. 1992). Holland complains the actions of the trial court in excluding evidence of innocence at sentencing, such as Dr. Canfield's testimony, violates his right to compulsory process and his Confrontation Clause guarantees. These rights (fair trial, due process, equal protection) are discussed above through case law in several allegations of error. Holland cites no caselaw to support the proposition that the trial court's refusal to admit Dr. Canfield's testimony violates either compulsory process or Confrontation Clause guarantees. This sub-issue is thus barred as unsupported by authority. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 626 So.2d 631, 634 (Miss. 1993). ¶ 48. Notwithstanding the bar, even alternatively considering the issue on the merits, Holland has no Confrontation Clause guarantees at sentencing. Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576, 584, 79 S.Ct. 421, 426, 3 L.Ed.2d 516 (1959), reh'g denied, 359 U.S. 956, 79 S.Ct. 737, 3 L.Ed.2d 763 (1959); see United States v. Hammer, 3 F.3d 266, 272 (8th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1139, 114 S.Ct. 1121, 127 L.Ed.2d 430 (1994). ¶ 49. Although the United States Supreme Court has not reviewed the question of compulsory process at sentencing, at least one state court requires that guarantee under some circumstances. State v. Wells, 265 N.W.2d 239, 243 (N.D. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 932, 99 S.Ct. 2865, 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979). On the merits, Mississippi caselaw holds that compulsory process requires a fair and reasonable opportunity to confront and rebut any evidence which supports the State's position. Goforth v. City of Ridgeland, 603 So.2d 323, 327 (Miss. 1992). Neither this Court nor any other has determined what effect, if any, a prior jury's finding of guilt would have on this right at resentencing. The question of compulsory process, in conflict with theory on res judicata, is a case of first impression for this Court. In Holland v. State, 587 So.2d 848 (1991), this Court affirmed the finding of the prior jury that Holland had murdered the victim during the course of a rape. Such proof was sufficient for the prior jury to find that the capital offense was committed during the course of a rape and that Holland had actually killed Krystal King. Nevertheless, the State reintroduced proof of the killing and rape that had previously been introduced at the first trial. Allowing Holland to rebut the proof of his guilt by calling as witnesses or reading the testimony of Dr. Canfield, Mr. Turner, Dr. Riddick and Mr. Wojtkiewicz would be allowing Holland to relitigate the issue of guilt, which we have already determined to be res judicata. ¶ 50. Holland cites no cases in support of the claim that the trial court erred in denying the testimony of Dr. Riddick. Accordingly, this issue is barred from consideration. Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278, 1282 (Miss. 1993); Caldwell v. State, 564 So.2d 1371, 1373-74 (Miss. 1990). ¶ 51. The procedural bar notwithstanding, and alternatively considering the issue on the merits, we note that Holland addresses this issue on the same grounds as the allegations raised in Issues II through VII. Holland essentially argues that by disallowing rebuttal evidence against Dr. McGarry, the trial court violated Holland's constitutional rights. This issue revolves around, as do the other issues, whether res judicata at trial bars relitigation of guilt at sentencing, given Holland's constitutional rights. This allegation of error is an incarnation of the earlier addressed issues. [8] We again hold that this issue is barred due to res judicata. ¶ 52. Holland argues that the trial court's rulings unconstitutionally chilled his right to testify. Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987) (recognizing constitutional right to testify on one's own behalf at a criminal trial). Holland claims that because of the trial court's ruling he not only did not testify, but also elected not to make a closing statement to the jury. Such claim was raised for the first time in Holland's Motion for New Trial. We find that this is but a mere allegation wholly unsupported by any evidence in this record and was not further developed during the hearing on the motion for a new trial. This issue is barred. Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263, 1270 (Miss. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1019, 115 S.Ct. 1365, 131 L.Ed.2d 221 (1995), reh'g denied, 514 U.S. 1123, 115 S.Ct. 1992, 131 L.Ed.2d 878 (1995); Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365 (Miss. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 934, 109 S.Ct. 330, 102 L.Ed.2d 348 (1988), reh'g denied, 488 U.S. 1023, 109 S.Ct. 826, 102 L.Ed.2d 815 (1989).