State v. Savinskiy, 286 Or. App. 232

Defendant convicted of multiple offenses including two counts of attempted murder, fleeing/eluding, identity theft, silencer possession, recklessly endangering, and conspiracies (Counts 1–19).
On remand, the court addressed whether police interrogation of defendant by his cellmate Russell violated Article I, section 11, right to counsel when examining uncharged conspiracies.
The interrogation occurred after defendant had retained counsel for charged offenses; detectives sought a warrant to record Russell’s conversations and later amended the indictment to add new charges (Counts 14–19).
Trial court suppressed some Russell conversations about charged offenses but allowed discussions of new crimes; on appeal, the court considered Prieto-Rubio-based applicability to the present case.
The reviewing court holds that, given the substantial overlap and inherently incriminating nature of the uncharged conspiracies, Russell’s questioning violated Article I, section 11, and all evidence from those interrogations must be suppressed, with mixed harmless-error analysis for different counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Russell’s interrogations violated right to counsel	Savinskiy argues Prieto-Rubio applies and counsel was not present.	Savinskiy contends no attachment issue for uncharged crimes.	Yes; right to counsel violated for interrogations.
Whether Prieto-Rubio applies as attached-use framework	Prieto-Rubio governs use of evidence from unlawful interrogation.	Prieto-Rubio does not apply to uncharged-conduct framing.	Prieto-Rubio applies to this case.
Whether evidence from Russell’s interrogations must be suppressed	Evidentiary fruits of unlawful interrogation should be suppressed.	Some evidence may be admissible if obtained independently.	All prejudicial statements and evidence from those interrogations suppressed.
Whether the trial court’s error was harmless as to specific counts	Error affected multiple counts in proving conspiracies.	Some counts unaffected by the interrogation.	Error harmful for Counts 1,2,7,17,18,19; harmless for Counts 5,6,9–13.

State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85 (1983) (right to counsel attaches after charging; applies to evidence gathering)
State v. Plew, 255 Or App 581 (2013) (standard for reviewing suppression orders; sufficiency of findings)
Prieto-Rubio, 359 Or 16 (2016) (test for foreseeability of incriminating evidence across charged and uncharged conduct)
State v. Hensley, 281 Or App 523 (2016) (overlapping evidence factors in Prieto-Rubio-like analysis)
Beltran-Solas, 277 Or App 665 (2016) (suppress ‘other crimes’ evidence obtained from unlawful interrogation)
State v. Smith, 310 Or 1 (1990) (informant involvement as basis for exclusionary rule)
State v. Riddle, 156 Or App 606 (1998) (reversal/remand limited to convictions affected by error)