State v. Jedlicka
297 Neb. 276
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Defendant Paul Jedlicka lived with the victim (M.B.), a 10‑year‑old, and allegedly digitally penetrated her while she slept; she disclosed the assault to a former teacher the next day.
- School reported the allegation; law enforcement referred M.B. to Project Harmony, a child advocacy center that provides forensic interviews, medical exams, and therapy.
- Forensic interviewer April Anderson (Project Harmony) conducted and video‑recorded a structured NCAC‑protocol interview with M.B.; law enforcement observed remotely and Anderson summarized the interview to nurse practitioner Sarah Cleaver.
- Cleaver examined M.B. and obtained relevant history (timing, symptoms, potential evidence collection), collected evidence within the 72‑hour window, and recommended followup mental‑health care.
- At trial, Jedlicka objected to admission of the Project Harmony interview (exhibit 2) as hearsay; the court admitted it under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) (medical diagnosis/treatment exception). Jury convicted Jedlicka of first‑degree sexual assault of a child under 12; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Project Harmony interview under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) | State: interview was in the chain of medical care, statements were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment and made in contemplation of medical care | Jedlicka: interview served investigatory purposes, interviewer not treating physician, child didn’t expressly intend medical care; Cleaver did not view the video before exam | Court: admissible — forensic interview was in the chain of medical care and circumstances reasonably infer M.B. intended statements for medical diagnosis/treatment; dual‑purpose statements allowed if pertinent and intent inferred |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (general and specific failures) | Jedlicka: counsel failed to object to evidence, failed to present/explore expert witnesses, and failed to meaningfully test prosecution case (invoking Cronic) | State: alleged failures are either unsupported by record, are trial‑strategy questions, or require an evidentiary record for review; counsel did advocate and did not completely fail (Strickland applies) | Court: Cronic inapplicable (no complete failure). Strickland review: some claims lack record to resolve on direct appeal and others show no prejudice; overall no reversible ineffective assistance shown on direct appeal |
| Sufficiency of the evidence / overruling motion to dismiss | State: testimony and corroborating evidence (teacher report, forensic interview, medical exam) support conviction | Jedlicka: inconsistencies, lack of physical evidence, alleged leading questions produced false disclosure | Court: viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, sufficient evidence supported conviction; credibility and conflicts were for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (Presumed prejudice only where counsel wholly fails to test prosecution or similar extreme circumstances)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (Distinguishing Strickland and Cronic; failure must be complete for Cronic to apply)
- State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (Forensic interviews may be admissible under medical‑purpose hearsay exception where part of the chain of medical care)
- State v. Ash, 293 Neb. 583 (Standards for raising ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal)