State v. Jedlicka
297 Neb. 276
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Defendant Paul Jedlicka lived with the victim (M.B., age 10) and her mother; M.B. alleged digital vaginal penetration by Jedlicka after sleeping between him and her brother.
- M.B. disclosed the assault at school; the teacher alerted school officials and Child Protective Services, and law enforcement referred M.B. to Project Harmony (a child advocacy center).
- Forensic interviewer April Anderson (Project Harmony) conducted a recorded NCAC‑style interview with M.B.; law enforcement and a caseworker observed by closed‑circuit and received a DVD and summary.
- Nurse practitioner Sarah Cleaver at Project Harmony used Anderson’s summary to decide to examine M.B. and to collect evidence within the 72‑hour window; Cleaver testified the interview information guided diagnostic and treatment decisions.
- At trial, defense objected to admitting the Project Harmony interview recording (Exhibit 2) as hearsay; the court admitted it under the medical‑diagnosis/treatment exception (Neb. Evid. R. 803(3)).
- Jedlicka was convicted of first‑degree sexual assault of a child under 12; he appealed, challenging admission under 803(3), alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and asserting insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jedlicka) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Project Harmony interview under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) | Interview was part of chain of medical care; statements were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment and made to obtain medical/therapeutic help | Interview was investigatory, not medical; not in chain of medical care; child lacked intent to obtain medical diagnosis/treatment | Court upheld admission: interview was in chain of medical care and statements were made in contemplation of diagnosis/treatment, so 803(3) applied |
| Whether dual‑purpose statements (medical + investigatory) satisfy 803(3) | Dual purpose allowed if (1) declarant’s purpose was to assist medical diagnosis/treatment and (2) statements were reasonably pertinent | Argued investigator presence and law‑enforcement purpose negated medical intent | Court applied Vigil test: dual‑purpose statements admissible when they have value in diagnosis/treatment; both prongs satisfied here |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — Cronic‑type presumption of prejudice | Defendant argued cumulative/serious trial counsel failures justify presuming prejudice under Cronic | State: counsel did not entirely fail; alleged errors are Strickland‑type claims | Court rejected Cronic; counsel did not completely fail to advocate; Cronic presumption not applicable |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — Strickland claims and other trial errors | N/A (State defends adequacy) | Alleged specific failures: not objecting to certain exhibits or questions, not retaining rebuttal experts, incomplete impeachment | Court: some claims lack record development and insufficient for direct appeal; where record adequate, no prejudice shown; declined to resolve others on direct appeal (remedy via postconviction) |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict | State relied on victim’s testimony and other admitted evidence | Jedlicka argued inconsistencies, lack of physical evidence, and influence of interviewer | Court found evidence, viewed for the State, sufficient for a rational jury to convict; motion to dismiss properly overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (narrow circumstances where prejudice is presumed for total failure of counsel)
- State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (Neb. 2012) (forensic‑interviewer statements may be admissible under medical exception when in chain of medical care)
- State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575 (Neb. 2014) (explains rationale and scope of rule 803(3) relevance to diagnosis/treatment)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) (distinguishes Strickland and Cronic; counsel’s failures of degree are Strickland matters)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (rare application of Cronic; counsel must entirely fail to function as advocate)
- Betancourt‑Garcia v. State, 295 Neb. 170 (Neb. 2016) (standard for appellate review of ineffective assistance claims)