State v. Jedlicka
297 Neb. 276
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Defendant Paul J. Jedlicka was convicted by a jury of first-degree sexual assault of a child under 12 based largely on the victim M.B.’s recorded forensic interview at Project Harmony and her in-court testimony.
- M.B., age 10, alleged digital penetration by Jedlicka after waking while sleeping between him and her brother; she first disclosed to a former teacher, which prompted Child Protective Services and law enforcement involvement.
- Project Harmony forensic interviewer April Anderson conducted a recorded NCAC‑protocol interview the day after the assault; the video was observed by law enforcement and summarized for Project Harmony nurse practitioner Sarah Cleaver, who examined M.B. and collected evidence.
- At trial the court admitted the Project Harmony interview recording (Exhibit 2) under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) (medical diagnosis/treatment exception); defendant objected as hearsay and argued the interview served only investigatory purposes.
- Defendant also raised ineffective-assistance claims (failure to object, failure to retain experts, questioning strategy) and moved for dismissal for insufficiency of evidence after the State rested; both were denied and the conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jedlicka) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of forensic interview under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) | Interview was part of chain of medical care and statements were pertinent to diagnosis/treatment | Interview was investigatory, not medical; declarant lacked intent to obtain medical care | Court admitted recording: interview was in chain of care and statements inferably made to obtain medical diagnosis/treatment |
| Whether statements made with intent to obtain medical diagnosis/treatment | Circumstantial evidence (interviewer’s role, parent consent, summary to clinician, purpose to assess medical/therapeutic needs) supports medical purpose | No direct testimony M.B. sought medical help; setting not medical | Court inferred intent from circumstances; ruled statements were admissible under rule 803(3) |
| Ineffective assistance — Cronic v. Strickland framework | N/A | Counsel’s aggregate errors amounted to constructive denial of counsel or complete failure to test prosecution (invoke Cronic) | Cronic not applicable; alleged errors constitute ‘‘bad lawyering,’’ not total failure; review proceeds under Strickland or preserved for postconviction where record insufficient |
| Ineffective assistance — specific failures and expert witnesses (Strickland) | N/A | Trial counsel failed to object, impeach, or call rebuttal/DNA/medical experts, resulting in prejudice | Some claims lacked record development and cannot be decided on direct appeal; other claims lacked prejudice on record; no entitlement to relief on direct appeal |
| Sufficiency of evidence/denial of motion to dismiss | N/A | Conviction unsupported because story changed, no physical evidence, and possible suggestive interviewing | Court applied standard of viewing evidence most favorably to State; found evidence sufficient for conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (narrow exceptions where prejudice is presumed for constructive denial of counsel)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) (distinguishing Strickland and Cronic; failure must be complete for Cronic)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (rare application of Cronic; counsel must function as advocate)
- State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (2012) (forensic‑interviewer statements may be admissible under medical‑purpose hearsay exception when in chain of medical care)
- State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40 (2017) (standard of review for hearsay rulings)