State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276

Background

Defendant Paul J. Jedlicka was convicted by a jury of first-degree sexual assault of a child under 12 based principally on the child victim’s testimony and a recorded forensic interview at a child advocacy center (Project Harmony).
The forensic interviewer (April Anderson) conducted a recorded NCAC‑protocol interview while law enforcement observed; the interviewer summarized her findings to the Project Harmony nurse practitioner (Sarah Cleaver), who performed a medical exam and determined DNA collection was timely.
The defense objected at trial to admission of the recorded forensic interview (Exhibit 2) as hearsay; the district court admitted it under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) (medical diagnosis/treatment exception).
Jedlicka moved for dismissal at the close of the State’s case; the motion was denied and the jury convicted. He was sentenced to 15–25 years and appeals.
On appeal Jedlicka argued (1) erroneous admission of the forensic interview under Rule 803(3), (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel (including failure to object, failure to call experts, and other alleged tactical errors), and (3) insufficiency of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) (medical diagnosis/treatment)	State: Interview was within the chain of medical care and statements were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment.	Jedlicka: Interview was investigatory, not medical; child didn’t intend statements for medical diagnosis; examiner did not view the video.	Court affirmed admission — interviewer was in the chain of medical care; circumstances permitted inference child intended statements for medical diagnosis/treatment; dual‑purpose statements admissible if medical purpose shown.
Ineffective assistance of counsel — applicability of Cronic vs. Strickland	Jedlicka: Aggregate trial counsel errors deprived him of meaningful adversarial testing; Cronic prejudice should be presumed.	State: Counsel actively represented defendant; errors, if any, are ordinary performance issues for Strickland review; record insufficient for many claims.	Court refused to apply Cronic (no complete failure to test prosecution). Some Strickland claims lacked record support and must be pursued postconviction; others lacked prejudice on the record and failed.
Ineffective assistance — specific failures (objecting, experts, impeachment)	Jedlicka: Counsel failed to object to exhibits, failed to retain rebuttal experts, and failed to impeach inconsistencies.	State: Record does not show what experts would have said or counsel’s strategy; some failures produced no prejudice on record.	Court held record insufficient to resolve many of these claims on direct appeal; where record permitted, no prejudice shown (e.g., drawing admissible; no harm from unstricken objections).
Sufficiency of the evidence	State: Child’s testimony plus other evidence sufficed.	Jedlicka: Alleged inconsistencies, lack of physical/DNA evidence, and interview suggest unreliability.	Court affirmed conviction — appellate court does not reweigh credibility; evidence, viewed favorably to State, was sufficient.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (narrow circumstances where prejudice is presumed because counsel entirely failed to test the prosecution)
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) (distinguishes Strickland from Cronic; counsel’s failures must be complete for Cronic to apply)
Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (emphasizes rarity of presuming prejudice and that counsel must entirely fail to function as advocate)
State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (2012) (forensic interviewer statements can be admissible under Rule 803(3) as part of the chain of medical care)
State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575 (2014) (discusses medical‑purpose rationale underlying Rule 803(3))
State v. Betancourt‑Garcia, 295 Neb. 170 (2016) (standards for reviewing ineffective assistance claims on appeal)
State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40 (2017) (standard of review for hearsay rulings)