Eppich, Karl C.

Meet the Justice

Division:

Division II

Judicial Performance Review Committee Score:

Meets JPR Standards

Bio:

View Candidate Bio

Responses

Response Legend

*Comment
−Declined to respond

Question	Response	Comments/Notes
1. Please describe your judicial philosophy — how you understand the role of a judge, and how you go about deciding the cases that come before you.	−
2. Is there a jurist — from any court, living or deceased — whose approach to judging you particularly admire? Please name the jurist and briefly explain why.	−
3. Where would you place your own approach to statutory construction on the spectrum below, with “textualism” at one end (1) and “purposivism” at the other(10)?	−
4. Please rate your agreement with the following statement of Chief Justice John Roberts on a scale of 1 to 5 with a "1" for strongly agree to a "10" for strongly disagree: “Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.”	−
5. Please rate your agreement with this statement from former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall on a scale of 1 to 5 with a "1" for strongly disagree to a "5" for strongly agree: "Judicial power, as contradistinguished from the power of the laws, has no existence. Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law; and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the Court to follow it. Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law."	−
6. Please rate your agreement with the following statement of Chief Justice John Marshall on a scale of 1 to 5 with a "1" for strongly disagree to a "5" for strongly agree: "The Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties that are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.	−
7. Is there anything else you would like Arizona voters to know about how you approach your work as a judge?	−

Judicial Decisions

RICHARD RODGERS, SHELBY MANGUSON-HAWKES, DAVID PRESTON v. CHARLES H. HUCKELBERRY, SHARON BRONSON, et al.

Case Date: 10/26/2022Case Number: 2 CA-CV 2021-0072Question Presented: Whether Pima County’s agreements with World View Enterprises, Inc. for the lease, use, and purchase of certain county property violated the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution.Decision: Under the plain language of article IX, § 7 of the Arizona Constitution, Wistuber, and subsequent cases, Pima County’s LPA with World View violates the Gift Clause by granting an illegal subsidy to World View through the purchase option.Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.

TIMOTHY MATTHEWS v. ICA, CITY OF TUCSON, TRISTAR

Case Date: 07/09/2021Case Number: 2 CA-IC 2020-0001Question Presented: Whether the workers’ compensation mental injury statue, A.R.S. § 23-1043.01(B), violates article XVIII, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution by requiring an “unexpected, unusual or extraordinary” stress related to the worker’s occupation in order to establish a compensable claim?Decision: The law does not conflict with the Arizona Constitution. Judge Position: Joined the 2/1 decision, in which J. Eckerstrom dissented.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Dissent by J. Eckerstrom: “The provision we address, § 23-1043.01(B), not only conflicts with article XVIII, § 8 in application; it does so squarely in its language….I would therefore follow the reasoning and precedent our supreme court set forth in Grammatico and hold § 23-1043.01(B) unconstitutional on the same grounds.”

STATE OF ARIZONA v. EDGAR FRISTOE

Case Date: 05/20/2021Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2019-0064Question Presented: Whether Google LLC (Google) and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) violated defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution by searching his “Google+ Photos” account, opening images of child pornography uploaded to his account, and sharing these images with law enforcement.Decision: Google’s searching of defendant’s Google+ Photos account was a private search not subject to the constitutional warrant requirement. NCMEC did not violate defendant’s rights because it did not exceed the scope of Google’s private searching when it opened, reviewed, and sent the images, already viewed and identified as child pornography by Google, to police.Judge Position: Authored the 3/1 decision.

STATE OF ARIZONA v. PETER JOHN SCHMIDTFRANZ

Case Date: 02/26/2021Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2018-0231Question Presented: Whether retrial under § 13-3623(A) violated defendant’s constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy. See Ariz. Const. art. II, § 10.Decision: The court does not reach the issue of whether Arizona Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause grants broader protection than that of the United States Constitution on a claim of insufficient evidence because the evidence in Schmidtfranz’s first trial was sufficient to establish that he had “care” of I.W. within the meaning of § 13-3623(A).Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision, in which J. Brearcliffe specially concurred.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: "Concurrence by J. Brearcliffe: Specially concurs fully in the decision but writes to say that the evidence at issue is Rule 404(b) evidence and can be properly used at retrial."

STATE OF ARIZONA v. QUINTON LAMAR NUNN

Case Date: 11/09/2020Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2019-0160Question Presented: Whether Nunn’s convictions for promoting prison contraband and possession of a dangerous drug violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.Decision: Facing multiple punishments for possessing a dangerous drug violated double jeopardy so that conviction is vacated.Judge Position: Joined the 3/0 decision.