Opinion ID: 2633527
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Retroactivity analysis under Nevada law

Text: Our conclusion that the rule in Crawford does not apply retroactively under federal law does not end our inquiry. We must also consider the retroactivity of Crawford under Nevada law under the standards we set out in Colwell v. State. [32] We hold that Crawford does not satisfy these standards; thus, Ennis is not entitled to post-conviction relief. In Colwell, we modified the federal retroactivity standard, adopting our own three-part test to determine if a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure should be given retroactive effect. First, we inquire whether the rule enunciated by the Supreme Court is new. Second, if the rule is new, we determine whether the conviction of the person seeking application of the rule was final. Third, we determine whether the rule falls under the two exceptions to nonretroactivity we enunciated in Colwell.