State v. Jedlicka
297 Neb. 276
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Defendant Paul J. Jedlicka lived with the victim M.B. (age 10) and her mother; M.B. alleged digital vaginal penetration by Jedlicka after sleeping in the same bed.
- M.B. told a former teacher at school, who reported it to authorities; law enforcement referred M.B. to Project Harmony (a child advocacy center) for a forensic interview.
- Forensic interviewer April Anderson (Project Harmony) conducted a video-recorded interview observed by police; nurse practitioner Sarah Cleaver used Anderson’s summary to decide to examine M.B. and collect evidence.
- At trial the court admitted the Project Harmony interview (Exhibit 2) under the medical diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception, over Jedlicka’s objection.
- Jury convicted Jedlicka of first-degree sexual assault of a child under 12; he appealed, arguing (1) Exhibit 2 was not admissible under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3), (2) trial counsel was ineffective, and (3) insufficient evidence supported conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jedlicka) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of forensic interview under medical-diagnosis exception (Neb. Evid. R. 803(3)) | Interview was in the chain of medical care and statements were reasonably pertinent and made to obtain medical/therapeutic assessment | Interview was investigatory, not part of medical care; child did not intend statements for diagnosis/treatment; treating nurse did not view recording | Court admitted Exhibit 2: interviewer part of chain of care; circumstances support inference child intended statements for diagnosis/treatment; dual-purpose statements admissible when pertinent to medical care |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — presumption under United States v. Cronic | N/A for State | Trial counsel’s aggregate mistakes (failure to object to evidence, not calling experts, ineffective cross-examination) amounted to constructive denial of counsel; prejudice should be presumed | Cronic inapplicable: counsel did not wholly fail to function; claims evaluated under Strickland; no complete denial shown |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — Strickland analysis | N/A | Specific failures (failure to object to drawing, objections strategy, failure to call experts, impeachment) deprived defendant of meaningful testing/prejudiced defense | Some claims lack prejudice (e.g., drawing); others cannot be resolved on direct appeal because the record is insufficient — preserved for postconviction proceedings if pursued |
| Sufficiency of the evidence / motion to dismiss | N/A | Evidence insufficient (no physical injury, alleged inconsistencies, interview elicited by interviewer) | Evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for conviction; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (narrow circumstances where prejudice is presumed due to constructive denial of counsel)
- State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (2012) (forensic interviews can be within the chain of medical care for rule 803(3) purposes)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) (distinguishes Strickland and Cronic; failure must be complete for Cronic to apply)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (reiterates rarity of presuming prejudice under Cronic)
- State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40 (2017) (standard of review for hearsay rulings)