State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276

Background

Defendant Paul Jedlicka lived with the mother and her two children; the 10‑year‑old victim M.B. alleged digital vaginal penetration by Jedlicka during the night.
The victim disclosed the assault to a former teacher, who reported it; law enforcement referred M.B. to Project Harmony (a child advocacy center) for a forensic interview and medical followup.
Forensic interviewer April Anderson (Project Harmony) conducted a video‑recorded interview observed by law enforcement; nurse practitioner Sarah Cleaver examined M.B. the same day based on Anderson’s summary and obtained appropriate samples and followup recommendations.
At trial the court admitted the Project Harmony interview recording under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) (medical diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception) over Jedlicka’s objection.
Jedlicka was convicted by a jury of first‑degree sexual assault of a child under 12; he appealed, arguing erroneous hearsay admission, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and insufficiency of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) of the forensic interview recording	State: Interview was in the chain of medical care and statements were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment	Jedlicka: Interview served only investigatory purposes; victim lacked intent to obtain medical care; not in medical chain	Court: Admitted recording—forensic interview was in the chain of medical care and the circumstances support inferring intent to obtain medical diagnosis/treatment
Ineffective assistance of counsel (general and specific omissions)	State: Trial counsel advocated; record does not show counsel wholly failed; many claims lack record support and require evidentiary development	Jedlicka: Counsel failed to object, failed to present/rebut experts, and failed to impeach effectively, so adversarial testing was inadequate	Court: No constructive denial under Cronic; most Strickland claims either meritless or unresolvable on direct appeal due to inadequate record; preserved claims either lack prejudice or require postconviction fact‑finding
Sufficiency of the evidence to deny motion to dismiss	State: Victim testimony and corroborating investigative/medical evidence sufficient	Jedlicka: Victim’s statements changed; no physical evidence; insufficient to prove penetration beyond reasonable doubt	Court: Evidence viewed in state’s favor was sufficient for a rational jury to convict; motion properly overruled
Sentence excessive (procedural)	N/A	Jedlicka argued sentence excessive on appeal	Court: Not considered—issue was argued but not assigned as error on appeal

Key Cases Cited

State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (Neb. 2012) (forensic interviews may be within the chain of medical care for rule 803(3))
State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575 (Neb. 2014) (explains medical‑purpose rationale for rule 803(3))
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (narrow circumstances where prejudice is presumed for constructive denial of counsel)
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2002) (distinguishes Cronic from Strickland; counsel’s failure must be complete for Cronic relief)