With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". analysis applies when an aggravating circumstance is invalidated under McConnell. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err by striking the felony aggravating circumstance, determining that the error was prejudicial given that it was the only aggravating circumstance found by the jury, and concluding that the appropriate remedy was a new penalty hearing. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we reject the State’s contention that McConnell was wrongly decided and conclude that a new penalty hearing is the proper remedy in cases where the sole aggravating circumstance has been struck. We therefore affirm the district court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment. Gibbons, C. J., Douglas and Cherry, JJ., concur. 1 120 Nev. 1043, 102 P.3d 606 (2004) (<HOLDING>), rehearing denied, 121 Nev. 25, 107 P.3d 1287

A: holding that conspiracy to commit murder is not lesserincluded offense of firstdegree murder
B: holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense
C: holding that where both firstdegree and felony murder were possible bases for a murder conviction a jury instruction that suggested the jury could rely on felony murder as the predicate offense for a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was improper because under arizona law a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder requires a specific intent to kill
D: holding that it is unconstitutional to base aggravating circumstance in capital prosecution on felony that was used to obtain firstdegree murder conviction
D.