State v. Prieto-Rubio, 262 Or. App. 149

Defendant was investigated for sexual abuse of three related minor girls (AG, KM, LP); AG’s disclosure led to interviews and charges first for AG.
Detective Rookhuyzen observed AG’s CARES evaluation, interviewed defendant twice the day AG was evaluated (defendant then charged re: AG and retained counsel), and interviewed him a third time in jail on Oct. 5 without contacting defendant’s attorney.
During the third interview, defendant made incriminating statements about KM and LP; those statements formed the basis for new charges (Case No. C11-2523CR) later consolidated with the AG case (C11-1693CR).
Defendant moved to suppress the third-interview statements on Article I, §11 (right to counsel) grounds; the trial court denied suppression, and defendant was convicted on two counts (KM and LP) and on two attempt counts (AG).
On appeal, the court considered whether the separate incidents were “factually related” so that police were required to notify defense counsel before the third interview; it concluded they were factually related and reversed the convictions tied to KM and LP, remanding for resentencing; the AG convictions were affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether police had to notify defendant’s attorney before the Oct. 5 jail interview under Article I, §11 (i.e., whether the KM/LP incidents were "factually related" to the charged AG episode)	Incidents involved different victims and a broad time range (up to two years); thus they were separate criminal episodes and police need not notify counsel for questioning about the uncharged incidents.	The incidents were factually related: same defendant, same house, similar conduct, same investigator who treated the matters as part of a single unified investigation; counsel should have been notified before further interrogation.	The court held the episodes were factually related (same investigator, similar victims/conduct, unified investigation); police should have notified counsel; suppression should have been granted; convictions for KM and LP reversed and remanded.
Whether defendant preserved on appeal a challenge to admission of eyewitness testimony/weight of evidence via motion for judgment of acquittal	N/A (state argued lack of preservation).	Defendant contended victims’ testimony was unreliable and sought acquittal; he argued memory contamination but did not move to exclude testimony.	The court held the issue was not preserved (no specific exclusionary objection made) and thus affirmed the convictions in the AG case.

State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85 (1983) (Article I, §11 requires notifying a defendant’s attorney before further interrogation about the charged criminal episode)
State v. Potter, 245 Or App 1 (2011) (analyzed factual relatedness of separate offenses; collaborative investigation and overlapping evidence support relation)
State v. Plew, 255 Or App 581 (2013) (crimes separated in time can still be factually related; temporal proximity is one of many factors)
State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66 (1993) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335 (2000) (preservation requirement for appellate review of evidentiary objections)