State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276

Background

Defendant Paul Jedlicka lived with victim M.B. (age 10) and her mother; M.B. alleged digital vaginal penetration by Jedlicka during the night on May 13, 2015.
The next day M.B. told a former teacher, who alerted school authorities; law enforcement referred M.B. to Project Harmony, a child advocacy center, for a forensic interview and possible medical services.
Forensic interviewer April Anderson (Project Harmony) conducted a videotaped NCAC‑protocol interview while detectives observed by closed circuit; nurse practitioner Sarah Cleaver relied on Anderson’s summary to perform a medical exam and decide on evidence collection.
At trial the court admitted the Project Harmony interview recording (Exhibit 2) over Jedlicka’s hearsay objection under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) (medical diagnosis/treatment exception).
A jury convicted Jedlicka of first‑degree sexual assault of a child under 12; he appealed, challenging admission of the recording, trial counsel’s effectiveness, and sufficiency of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) (medical diagnosis/treatment)	State: recording and statements were made in the chain of medical care and were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment	Jedlicka: interview was investigatory, not in chain of medical care; declarant lacked intent to obtain medical diagnosis/treatment	Admitted — court finds interviewer part of chain of medical care and statements reasonably made in contemplation of medical diagnosis/treatment (dual purpose allowed if medical intent and pertinence shown)
Whether M.B. made statements with intent to obtain medical diagnosis/treatment	State: circumstantial evidence (interviewer’s assurances, Project Harmony role, mother’s consent, interviewer’s testimony) supports inferring medical intent	Jedlicka: no direct testimony that M.B. sought medical help; setting not medical	Held — court may infer intent from circumstances; facts supported inference of medical intent
Claim of ineffective assistance — Cronic (constructive denial of counsel)	Jedlicka: aggregate failures by trial counsel deprived him of meaningful adversarial testing	State: defense counsel did advocate and did not wholly fail	Held — Cronic inapplicable; alleged errors amount to bad lawyering, not complete failure to test prosecution, so Strickland governs
Claim of ineffective assistance — Strickland and sufficiency of record for appeal	Jedlicka: counsel failed to object, impeach, and call experts (DNA, forensic, medical), prejudicing the defense; also argues evidence insufficient	State: some claims lack record development; many matters are strategic; evidence was sufficient	Held — Some ineffective‑assistance claims lack an adequate record and preserved issues are either meritless or deferred to postconviction review; sufficiency challenge fails — viewed in State’s favor the evidence supports conviction

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (narrow exceptions where prejudice is presumed for constructive denial of counsel)
State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (forensic interviewer statements may be admissible under rule 803(3) as part of chain of medical care)
State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575 (discusses medical‑purpose hearsay exception and pertinence to diagnosis/treatment)
State v. Betancourt‑Garcia, 295 Neb. 170 (addresses standard for reviewing ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal)