NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

CHRISTIAN ROBERT ESCHRICH, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0845 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201700244

The Honorable Richard Weiss, Judge, Retired

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Janelle A. McEachern, Attorney at Law, Chandler

By Janelle A. McEachern

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 9-24-2019
STATE v. ESCHRICH

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

Christian Eschrich filed this appeal in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), 

following his convictions of: (1) aggravated domestic violence by 

interfering with judicial proceedings, a Class 5 felony; (2) aggravated 

assault by domestic violence, a Class 4 felony; (3) robbery, a Class 4 felony; 

and (4) sexual assault by domestic violence, a Class 2 felony. Eschrich's

counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question

of law that is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 284 (2000); 

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 (App. 1999). 

Eschrich was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not 

do so. Counsel now asks this court to search the record for fundamental 

error. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm Eschrich's convictions

and sentences as modified.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In violation of an order of protection, Eschrich broke into the 

victim's home.

1 Once inside, Eschrich choked, slapped and sexually 

assaulted the victim, then stole money that she kept on her person. The 

victim reported the break-in, the choking and the robbery to Kingman 

police later that day. Four days later, she reported the sexual assault. 

Several swabs taken from the victim during a subsequent sexual-assault 

examination revealed traces of semen containing DNA that matched 

Eschrich's.

A grand jury indicted Eschrich on one count each of 

aggravated domestic violence by interfering with judicial proceedings, 

aggravated assault by domestic violence and robbery. A fourth charge,

sexual assault by domestic violence, later was consolidated with the first 

 

1 Upon review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to 

sustaining the jury's verdicts and resolve all inferences against Eschrich. 

State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 509, ¶ 93 (2013).
STATE v. ESCHRICH

Decision of the Court

3

three. The jury found Eschrich guilty of all charges. The superior court 

sentenced Eschrich to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 1.5 and 7 years 

on counts 1 and 4, respectively, followed by consecutive terms of 2.5 and 

1.5 years on counts 2 and 3, respectively. Eschrich received 617 days' 

presentence incarceration credit.

Eschrich timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised 

Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2019), 13-4031 (2019) and 

-4033(A)(1) (2019).2

DISCUSSION

The record reflects Eschrich received a fair trial. He was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him and was 

present at all critical stages. The court held appropriate pretrial hearings.

At the close of jury selection, Eschrich moved to strike Juror 

399145 for cause. During voir dire, the venire member had disclosed that 

her husband is the Chief of the Kingman Police Department, which 

investigated the victim's reports and ultimately arrested Eschrich. 

Members of the Kingman Police Department were listed as witnesses for 

the State and were to testify against Eschrich. The venire member also 

reported that her son works for the Mohave County Sheriff's Office, she

herself is an employee of the justice court, and she knows the detective in 

this case as well as other members of the Kingman Police Department. 

When asked if any of these relationships would affect her ability to be fair 

and impartial, she replied, "No, I work for the court. I have to remain fair 

and impartial."

Relying on that response, the court denied Eschrich's motion

to strike the venire member. While we doubt the wisdom of denying the 

motion, see State v. Eddington, 226 Ariz. 72, 75-78, ¶¶ 4-12 (App. 2010), the 

error was harmless, see id. at 79, ¶¶ 18-20, because she ultimately was not 

seated on the jury. Even if the superior court errs by denying a motion to 

strike a prospective juror for cause, "under all but the most extraordinary 

circumstances, defendants will be unable . . . to show prejudice and secure 

any relief arising from a trial court's erroneous failure to strike a 

venireperson for cause." Id. at ¶ 20. No such circumstances exist here.

 

2 Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite 

a statute's current version.
STATE v. ESCHRICH

Decision of the Court

4

At trial, the State sought to introduce a report of the victim's 

sexual-assault examination. Eschrich objected to admission of the narrative 

description of the assault contained within the report, arguing it was 

inadmissible hearsay. The superior court overruled the objection and 

allowed the report. Regardless of whether the narrative description of the 

assault was for the purposes of medical diagnoses, see generally State v. 

Lopez, 217 Ariz. 433 (App. 2008), the State also offered the narrative as a 

prior consistent statement. Such a use is permitted by Arizona Rule of 

Evidence 801(d)(1)(B); see also State v. Williams, 131 Ariz. 211, 214 (1982) 

(statements made to investigating officer in a sexual assault case were 

admissible at trial as prior consistent statements). Thus, the superior court 

did not err by admitting the full report.

More generally, the State presented both direct and 

circumstantial evidence sufficient to allow the jury to convict. The jury was 

properly comprised of eight members, who were properly instructed on the 

elements of the charges and the State's burden of proof. The jury returned 

a unanimous verdict, and the court received and considered a presentence 

report, addressed its contents during the sentencing hearing and imposed 

legal sentences for the crimes of which Eschrich was convicted. Although 

the court orally imposed sentences of 2.5 years on count 2 and 1.5 years on 

count 3, the sentencing minute entry recites that Eschrich would serve 1.5 

years for count 2 and 2.5 years for count 3. The "oral pronouncement in 

open court controls," and we therefore order the minute entry corrected to 

reflect the appropriate sentences. State v. Ovante, 231 Ariz. 180, 188, ¶¶ 38-

39 (2013) (quotation omitted).

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none, and therefore affirm the convictions and resulting sentences as 

modified. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. Although the court granted Eschrich 

two more days of presentence incarceration credit than was warranted,

absent a cross-appeal by the State, we will not correct the sentence. State v. 

Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278, 286 (1990).

Defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Eschrich's 

representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than 

inform Eschrich of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, 

upon review, counsel finds "an issue appropriate for submission" to the
STATE v. ESCHRICH

Decision of the Court

5

Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 

Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). On the court's own motion, Eschrich has 30 days 

from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per motion 

for reconsideration. Eschrich has 30 days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition for review.