State v. Jedlicka
297 Neb. 276
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Defendant Paul Jedlicka was convicted by a jury of first‑degree sexual assault of a child under 12 based primarily on the child victim M.B.’s testimony and a recorded forensic interview at Project Harmony.
- M.B., age 10, reported waking to Jedlicka’s fingers inside her vagina after sleeping between Jedlicka and her brother; she first disclosed details to her teacher and then underwent a forensic interview the same day.
- Project Harmony forensic interviewer April Anderson conducted a recorded interview while law enforcement observed; a nurse practitioner (Sarah Cleaver) used Anderson’s summary to decide to perform a medical exam and collect evidence within 72 hours.
- At trial, the defense objected that the Project Harmony video (Exhibit 2) was hearsay not covered by the medical diagnosis/treatment exception (Neb. Evid. R. 803(3)); the court admitted the recording and the jury convicted.
- Jedlicka appealed, arguing erroneous hearsay admission, ineffective assistance of trial counsel (including failure to present experts and certain objections), and insufficiency of the evidence; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of forensic interview under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) | State: interview statements are admissible as made in chain of medical care and pertinent to diagnosis/treatment | Jedlicka: interview was investigatory only, not in chain of medical care, and lacked intent to obtain medical treatment | Court: Admissible — interviewer was in chain of medical care and statements were reasonably pertinent and made with intent inferred from circumstances |
| Whether statements were made with intent for medical diagnosis/treatment | State: intent may be inferred from circumstances (interviewer role, parent consent, referral, purpose to assess needs) | Jedlicka: no direct evidence the child knew Project Harmony or that she sought medical help; setting not medical | Court: Intent may be inferred; circumstances supported inference of medical purpose |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (complete failure) — Cronic claim | Defendant: aggregate errors amount to constructive denial of counsel; prejudice should be presumed | State: counsel did not entirely fail; errors are ordinary tactical or specific matters | Court: Cronic not met; counsel did not entirely fail — evaluate under Strickland or leave for postconviction if record insufficient |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (specific omissions) — Strickland and sufficiency of record | Defendant: counsel failed to object, impeach, and present experts causing prejudice | State: record lacks details on what omitted experts would say; many claims cannot be resolved on direct appeal | Court: Some discrete claims lack prejudice or are unresolved due to insufficient record; preserved claims either fail or require postconviction fact‑finding |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict | State: victim’s testimony and other evidence sufficient | Defendant: victim’s story changed, no physical evidence, defendant’s statements consistent | Court: Viewing evidence in State’s favor, testimony and admissible evidence sufficed for rational juror to convict |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (legal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (narrow circumstances where prejudice is presumed for complete failure of counsel)
- State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (forensic interviewer statements may be admissible under 803(3) as part of chain of medical care)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (distinguishing Strickland and Cronic; counsel’s failure must be complete for Cronic)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (rarity of Cronic presumption; counsel must entirely fail to function as advocate)