Karl C. Eppich

Meet the Judge

Division:
Division 2
Judicial Performance Review Committee Score:
100%
Bio:
View Candidate Bio
Survey Response from Judge:
Judge declined to respond to the Center for Arizona Policy survey.

Judicial Decisions

FREEPORT MINERALS CORP. v ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION; TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER 
Case Date: 04/05/2018Case Number: 2 CA-CC 2017-0001Question Presented: Whether the Commission’s decision to adopt a gradual rate allocation scheme for certain classes of customers to subsidize the rates of other customers violates the Arizona Constitution.Decision: The Commission’s decision did not violate the constitution.Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.
IN RE $46,523.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY 
Case Number: 2 CA-CV 2017-0034Question Presented: Whether the U.S. Constitution requires the state to attempt additional means of notice to the claimants of seized property when the state has knowledge that its initial attempts were ineffective.Decision: The state’s failure to provide additional notice violated the constitution. Judge Position: Concurred in the 2/1 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. WILLIAM MIXTON 
Case Date: 07/29/2019Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2017-0217Question Presented: Whether the state violated the defendant’s constitutional rights by obtaining his internet address and subscriber information from a third party vendor without a warrant and whether the court was required to suppress the evidence or did the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply.Decision: The information was obtained in violation of Arizona Constitution but the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies and the evidence is admissible. Judge Position: Authored the 2/1 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. BOBBY RAY CARTER JR. 
Case Date: 09/19/2018Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2017-0149Question Presented: Whether constitutional protections against double jeopardy were violated by the defendant’s sentences and convictions for armed robbery, theft, and theft of means of transportation related to a single transaction involving one vehicle, and theft and theft of means of transportation related to a separate transaction involving another vehicle.Decision: The convictions did violate constitutional protections. Note the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the decision.Judge Position: Concurred in the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. ALFONSO DE ANDA III 
Case Date: 05/03/2018Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2017-0207Question Presented: Whether advising a suspect of the consequences of refusing a blood or breath test under Arizona’s implied-consent statute prior to asking for consent violates the United States Constitution.Decision: The advisement did not result in involuntary consent and did not violate the constitution. Note the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed this decision.Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.