the possibility of parole, life with the possibility of parole, a fixed term of years, or, in some cases, the death penalty. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 200.030(4). In other words, unless the penalty-phase proceeding is bifurcated, the only jury determination of any significance — and the only one that is sufficiently final to constitute a “verdict” in the ordinary sense — is the jury’s decision regarding which sentence to impose. In light of the structure of Nevada’s capital-sentencing scheme, and the underlying principles discussed supra, Harrison was not automatically entitled under Nevada law to poll the deadlocked jury on the status of its deliberations in his unbifurcated capital-sentencing proceeding. See Daniel v. State, 119 Nev. 498, 78 P.3d 890, 906 (2003) (en banc) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Although the jury may have reached
holding that if a trial court has rejected death as a possible sentence double jeopardy bars the state from seeking the death penalty at resentencing even where rejection of the death sentence was based on a legal error holding that trial court is not required to poll the jurors regarding possible acquittal on death penalty holding that the trial court did not err by allowing the prosecution to question prospective jurors regarding their ability to announce a death sentence in an appropriate case holding that defendant may be subject to death penalty on resentencing holding that leaning towards the death penalty is not the same as an automatic vote for the death penalty