no relevant authority or cogent bases upon which to conclude that striking a sole aggravating circumstance that violates McConnell mandates a new trial rather than a new penalty hearing. As a general rule, when an aggravating circumstance is invalidated, a new penalty hearing is the appropriate remedy unless it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that absent the invalid aggravator[ ] the jury still would have imposed a sentence of death.’ ’ The 005). 2 Harte v. State, 116 Nev. 1054, 13 P.3d 420 (2000). 3 Harte v. State, Docket No. 43877 (Order Dismissing Appeal, April 7, 2005); Harte v. State, Docket No. 43877 (Order Denying Rehearing, May 19, 2005); Harte v. State, Docket No. 43877 (Order Denying En Banc Reconsideration, September 8, 2005). 4 122 Nev. 1066, 146 P.3d 265 (2006) (<HOLDING>). 5 The district court also allowed Harte to
holding that rule announced in mcconnell applies retroactively holding that the rule announced by booker  does not operate retroactively holding amended rule applies retroactively unless it would work injustice holding that the rule announced in ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review holding that apprendi announced a rule of criminal procedure forecloses  argument that ring announced a substantive rule