With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding amended rule applies retroactively unless it would work injustice
B: holding that the rule announced in ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review
C: holding that the rule announced by booker  does not operate retroactively
D: holding that rule announced in mcconnell applies retroactively
D.