Case of Fremont Street DUI crash before Supreme Court next week

By Cy Ryan

Thursday, Dec. 30, 2010 | 9:52 a.m.

CARSON CITY – A drunken driving case that could cost a Las Vegas slot machine company millions of dollars comes before the Nevada Supreme Court next week for oral arguments.

ETT Inc. has been ordered by a district court in Clark County to pay $6.1 million to Juan Delegado, the husband of Rosa Delegado, who died in 2001 in an accident on Fremont Street.

ETT had purchased Jackpot and was consolidating its holdings into one warehouse. Temporary help was hired for the move. Two of the employees were Darwin R. Ellison and Russell Foster, who took an ETT truck said to be for work purposes.

But with Ellison at the wheel, they drove around Las Vegas, drinking for more than two hours.

Ellison crashed into the Delegado vehicle as Rosa was entering it, killing her. His blood alcohol level was 0.29, well above the legal limit of 0.08. Ellison was sent to prison but is now on parole.

After a civil trial in 2006, an $8.2 million judgment was rendered with ETT found 75 percent liable and Ellison 25 percent liable.

ETT, through its lawyers, argues in its appeal that critical evidence was excluded that included an audiotape by Foster. They argue that merits a reversal of the judgment. ETT attorneys also argue in their briefs that Delegado failed to prove his claims as a matter of law.

The case is one of seven appeals that will be heard by the court next week. Also on tap is the case of Eugene Nunnery, sentenced to death for killing a man during a crime spree in Las Vegas in which three people died.

Nunnery told the district court he wasn't sorry for the killings in Las Vegas and North Las Vegas that included robberies, home invasions and a shooting. He said he would do it again.

He was sentenced to death for the murder of Saul Nunez Saustegui who was shot execution style during a robbery. He also received life terms for killing Raphael Alfred and Antonio Perez-Martinez.

Lawyers for Nunnery say there was an error in allowing the prosecution to use a peremptory challenge to excuse the only remaining black potential juror. And there were questions about whether the jury was properly instructed, if a presentence investigation should have been admitted into evidence and if evidence in aggravation of the offense should have been allowed.

The court will hear the arguments and rule later.