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 the house where he lived with M.B. and her mother.
- M.B. reported the assault to a former teacher, which prompted a CPS/school report and law enforcement response; she was referred to Project Harmony, a child advocacy center.
- Forensic interviewer April Anderson (Project Harmony) conducted a video-recorded interview of M.B.; a nurse practitioner, Sarah Cleaver, used Anderson’s summary to decide to examine M.B. and collect potential evidence within the 72-hour window.
- At trial the prosecution offered the Project Harmony interview (DVD, “exhibit 2”); Jedlicka objected as hearsay under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) (medical diagnosis/treatment exception).
- The court admitted the interview under rule 803(3); the jury convicted Jedlicka of first-degree sexual assault of a child under 12; he appeals arguing erroneous hearsay admission, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and insufficiency of the 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 the chain of medical care; statements were reasonably pertinent and made in contemplation of diagnosis/treatment | Interview was investigatory (not medical); interviewer was not part of medical treatment chain and nurse did not view the recording | Court affirmed admission: interview was in the chain of medical care and M.B.’s statements could reasonably be inferred to be made for diagnosis/treatment |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — claim that counsel failed in key respects and opened the door to damaging testimony (invoking Cronic) | State: trial counsel advocated; errors alleged are deficiencies, not a complete failure to test the prosecution, so Strickland applies | Jedlicka: cumulative failures deprived him of meaningful adversarial testing, so prejudice should be presumed under Cronic | Court rejected Cronic; applied Strickland where appropriate. Some alleged failures lack record support and others cannot be resolved on direct appeal; no showing of prejudice on the claims addressable now |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (motion to dismiss) | State: M.B.’s testimony and other evidence, viewed favorably to the State, support a rational jury’s guilty verdict | Jedlicka: inconsistencies, no physical evidence, and suggestive interviewing undermine proof of penetration | Court held evidence was sufficient and declined to reweigh credibility; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (narrow circumstances where prejudice may be presumed when counsel wholly fails)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (distinguishing Cronic from Strickland; counsel’s failure must be complete for Cronic to apply)
- State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (forensic interviews in the chain of medical care may be admissible under rule 803(3))
- State v. Betancourt-Garcia, 295 Neb. 170 (review standard on ineffective-assistance claims on appeal)