State v. Jedlicka
297 Neb. 276
Neb.2017Background
- Defendant Paul J. Jedlicka lived with the victim (M.B., age 10) and her mother; M.B. alleged digital vaginal penetration by Jedlicka during the night and reported it the next day.
- School personnel referred M.B. to law enforcement and Project Harmony (a child advocacy center) for a forensic interview; the interview was video-recorded and observed by police and CPS.
- Forensic interviewer April Anderson questioned M.B. under NCAC protocols; Anderson relayed a summary to Project Harmony nurse practitioner Sarah Cleaver, who performed a medical exam and recommended followup therapy.
- The prosecution introduced the Project Harmony interview recording (Exhibit 2) over hearsay objection, relying on the medical-diagnosis/treatment exception (Neb. Evid. R. 803(3)).
- A jury convicted Jedlicka of first-degree sexual assault of a child under 12; Jedlicka appealed, challenging (1) admission of the interview under Rule 803(3), (2) trial counsel’s effectiveness, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) | State: interview statements were reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis/treatment and taken in chain of medical care | Jedlicka: interview served investigatory purposes; not in chain of medical care; child lacked intent to obtain medical treatment | Court: Admitted — interview was in chain of care and statements were made in legitimate contemplation of medical diagnosis/treatment |
| Whether statements were made with intent for medical diagnosis/treatment | State: circumstances (Project Harmony referral, interviewer’s role, mother’s consent, interviewer’s assurances) support inference of medical purpose | Jedlicka: no direct testimony child knew Project Harmony’s medical role, setting not medical | Held: Intent may be inferred from circumstances; sufficient circumstantial evidence supported medical purpose |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — Cronic claim (presumed prejudice) | Jedlicka: cumulative attorney errors amounted to complete failure to test State’s case | State: counsel did not entirely fail; errors are attackable under Strickland, not Cronic | Held: Cronic inapplicable — no complete failure; claims fall under Strickland analysis |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — Strickland claims and sufficiency of record | Jedlicka: counsel failed to object to certain exhibits, failed to retain experts, and mishandled cross-examination, causing prejudice | State: record insufficient for some claims; some alleged errors show no prejudice; others require evidentiary hearing/postconviction review | Held: Some claims lack merit or show no prejudice; other claims cannot be resolved on direct appeal due to an insufficient record |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing performance-and-prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (recognizing narrow circumstances where prejudice is presumed for failure to provide counsel)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (distinguishing Cronic from Strickland; counsel’s failure must be complete for Cronic to apply)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (reinforcing rarity of presuming prejudice under Cronic)
- State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (forensic interviews may be admissible under Rule 803(3) when part of the chain of medical care)
- State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575 (explaining Rule 803(3) rationale: statements made to obtain medical diagnosis/treatment are trustworthy)