LOVELOCK — A dispute that erupted over evidence during a manslaughter sentencing has been partially settled by the Nevada Supreme Court.

The high court ruled Judge Michael Montero, of the 6^th Judicial District Court, did not exceed his authority in ruling to exclude evidence.

However, the high court also ruled Montero exceeded his jurisdiction in striking down the appeal.  The high court justices reminded the district court judge that once an appeal is filed it becomes their exclusive jurisdiction.

CASE HISTORY:  The case involved Nick Andrews, of Winnemucca, who was in court on April 5 to be sentenced for voluntary manslaughter with use of a deadly weapon.

Andrews was convicted in connection to the 2006 shooting death of George Moritz.

Andrews did not pull the trigger that killed Moritz.  Instead, he is accused of aiding and abetting Matt Hutchinson, who was convicted of first-degree murder for the shooting and is currently serving life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Andrews pleaded guilty via Alford.  An Alford plea allows the defendant to maintain his innocence but acknowledges if the case were to proceed to trial the defendant could be convicted of a greater charge.

SENTENCING:  At the April 5 hearing, Pershing County DA Jim Shirley attempted to cross-examine a defense witness using information from a Humboldt County criminal case.

The witness was testifying to Andrews’ ability to be supervised when released, and to his admitted problems with alcohol.

In order to impeach the witness on cross examination, Shirley attempted to question her about the Humboldt County criminal case.  The Humboldt case refers to Andrews guilty plea, via Alford, to two counts of shooting into an occupied structure.

Pershing County Public Defender Steve Cochran and Reno attorney Marc Picker, who represent the defendant, objected to the use of that evidence.

Picker argued a plea agreement specifically prohibited the state from using the facts of the Humboldt case in the Pershing case. He noted if the state intended to use the facts of the Humboldt case in Pershing – they’d have to prove those facts in Pershing.

Shirley’s response:  It’s already been done.

Going back to 2007, before the plea agreement, Nick Andrews went on trial for first-degree murder for aiding and abetting Matt Hutchinson in the commission of a murder.

Before the trial, the state held a Petrocelli hearing, which is used to determine what previous bad acts would be discussed at trial – if any.  The district court ruled evidence/testimony from the Humboldt case would be allowed at trial.

Ultimately, the jury convicted on the burglary charge but were not able to reach consensus on the murder charge.

Judge Montero ruled evidence from the Petrocelli hearing was not sufficient and precluded the state from discussing issues from the Humboldt case at sentencing.

Shirley asked for a recess, during which he appealed Montero’s decision to the NSC.  The defense objected to the appeal.  Montero agreed and struck down the appeal.

THE APPEAL:  Because the NSC ordered Judge Montero to lift the order striking  the appeal, Shirley may – presumably – now appeal the evidence dispute to the high court.

The decision of the NSC did not include an opinion on whether the issue was appealable one way or the other.

They note evidence-exclusion arguments are usually the result of evidence that was unlawfully obtained, which was not the case here, resting on Constitutional issues.

Further Reading:

NSC Ruling

Previous Posts:

NSC halts proceedings in Andrews sentencing 

District Court: Sentencing grinds to a halt over evidence dispute

Andrews pleads guilty to reduced charges in 2006 murder case 

Humboldt County case:

Andrews sentenced for 2006 drive-by shootings 

District Court: Andrews pleads guilty in 2006 drive-by case