State v. Jedlicka
297 Neb. 276
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In May 2015, 10-year-old M.B. alleged that Paul Jedlicka digitally penetrated her while she slept in a bed with him and her brother; she disclosed the abuse first to a former teacher and then underwent a forensic interview at Project Harmony.
- Project Harmony forensic interviewer April Anderson conducted a recorded NCAC-style interview while law enforcement observed; nurse practitioner Sarah Cleaver relied on Anderson’s summary to decide to examine M.B. and collect potential DNA evidence.
- At trial the State sought to admit the recorded forensic interview (Exhibit 2); Jedlicka objected as hearsay. The district court admitted the recording under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) (medical diagnosis/treatment exception).
- A jury convicted Jedlicka of first-degree sexual assault of a child under 12. He appealed, arguing (1) erroneous admission of the interview under Rule 803(3), (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and (3) insufficiency of the evidence.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: it held the interview was admissible under Rule 803(3), rejected Cronic-based claims of constructive denial of counsel, declined to resolve some Strickland-related claims on direct appeal for lack of record, and found the evidence sufficient as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jedlicka) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of recorded forensic interview under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) | The interview was part of the chain of medical care and the victim’s statements were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment. | The interview was investigatory, not in the chain of medical care, and M.B. did not make statements intending medical diagnosis/treatment. | Admitted: interview was in the chain of medical care and circumstantial evidence supported that M.B. spoke with intent to obtain medical/therapeutic care. |
| Test for dual-purpose (medical vs. investigative) statements under 803(3) | Where statements have value for diagnosis/treatment, they satisfy the exception even if investigated by law enforcement. | Dual purpose here meant primarily investigatory so exception shouldn’t apply. | Applied Vigil standard: proponent must show declarant intended medical purpose and statements were reasonably pertinent; both satisfied. |
| Ineffective assistance — constructive denial (Cronic) | N/A for State (responds that counsel did not wholly fail). | Trial counsel’s aggregate errors amounted to complete failure to subject the State’s case to adversarial testing, so prejudice should be presumed. | Rejected: no complete failure; allegations sounded in poor advocacy not total absence of counsel, so Cronic does not apply. Claims addressed under Strickland or deferred for postconviction where record is insufficient. |
| Ineffective assistance — specific errors and sufficiency of record (Strickland) | N/A for State (argues record insufficient to resolve some claims; no prejudice shown on others). | Counsel failed to object to exhibits, opened damaging testimony, failed to call/explore experts and impeaching evidence, causing prejudice. | Mixed: some discrete claims lacked record for direct review (deferred to postconviction); on recorded matters court found no prejudice (e.g., failure to object to drawing) or no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (circumstances permitting presumed prejudice where counsel "entirely" fails to test prosecution)
- State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (Neb.) (forensic interviews can be in chain of medical care for Rule 803(3))
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (distinguishing Cronic and Strickland; limited application of presumed-prejudice rule)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (reaffirming narrow scope of Cronic exceptions)