Is the decision announced in State v. Ronald-Smith, a new susbtantive rule of law that the Federal Constitution requires to be applied retroactively to already final cases before that decision was decided?

Is a federal and state defendant, whose conviction is final, permitted by the Federal Constitution and holdings of this Court to attack at any time that the statute of his conviction is unconstitutional without being subjected to waivers or procedural bars? A split exists between Federal and State Courts.

Is, after the decision in State v. Ronald-Smith, Nebraska's statute for murder in the second degree compatible with the Constitution's prohibition of vague criminal laws?

Whether a new substantive rule of constitutional law must be applied retroactively to final cases