State v. Jedlicka
297 Neb. 276
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Defendant Paul Jedlicka lived with the victim (10-year-old M.B.) and her mother; M.B. testified Jedlicka digitally penetrated her while she slept.
- The morning after, M.B. told a former teacher, who reported to school officials and Child Protective Services; law enforcement referred the child to Project Harmony (a child advocacy center).
- Forensic interviewer April Anderson (Project Harmony) interviewed M.B. on video while detectives observed; Nurse Practitioner Sarah Cleaver later examined M.B. after receiving Anderson’s summary.
- At trial the prosecution offered the Project Harmony interview DVD (exhibit 2); Jedlicka objected as hearsay. The trial court admitted the recording 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 arguing (1) erroneous admission under Rule 803(3), (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and (3) insufficient evidence. Court affirmed.
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 child’s chain of medical care and statements were pertinent to diagnosis/treatment | Interview was investigatory, not in chain of medical care; M.B. lacked intent to obtain medical diagnosis/treatment | Court held interview admissible under Rule 803(3): forensic interview was in chain of medical care and circumstances supported inference M.B. intended statements for medical diagnosis/treatment |
| Whether dual-purpose (medical + investigatory) statements satisfy Rule 803(3) | Statements with some medical value may be admissible even if law enforcement involved | Statements were made primarily for investigation, not treatment | Court applied two-prong test—proponent must show declarant intended to assist medical diagnosis/treatment and statements were reasonably pertinent; both satisfied here |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — applicability of Cronic v. Strickland | — | Counsel’s alleged failures (no expert witnesses, failure to object) deprived Jedlicka of meaningful adversarial testing; Cronic presumption applies | Court rejected Cronic claim (no complete failure to test prosecution). Most allegations fall under Strickland; some claims lacked sufficient record for direct-review and are preserved for postconviction proceedings |
| Sufficiency of evidence (motion to dismiss) | — | Contends inconsistent child statements and no physical evidence make conviction unsupported | Court upheld conviction: does not reweigh credibility; evidence viewed in State’s favor was sufficient to support jury verdict |
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 (Neb. 2012) (forensic interviews may be within the chain of medical care for Rule 803(3))
- State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575 (Neb. 2014) (explaining Rule 803(3) rationale and standards)
- State v. Betancourt-Garcia, 295 Neb. 170 (Neb. 2016) (standards for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)