State v. Jedlicka
297 Neb. 276
Neb.2017Background
- Defendant Paul J. Jedlicka lived with the victim, 10‑year‑old M.B., and allegedly digitally penetrated her while she slept; M.B. disclosed the assault the next day at school.
- M.B. was taken to Project Harmony, a child advocacy center; forensic interviewer April Anderson (NCAC‑trained) conducted a recorded interview while law enforcement observed; nurse practitioner Sarah Cleaver later examined M.B. based on Anderson’s report.
- The prosecution introduced the Project Harmony video (Anderson’s forensic interview of M.B.) over Jedlicka’s hearsay objection, arguing it fell within the medical‑diagnosis/treatment exception (Neb. Evid. R. 803(3)).
- A jury convicted Jedlicka of first‑degree sexual assault of a child under 12; he was sentenced and filed this direct appeal challenging (1) admission of the interview, (2) trial counsel’s effectiveness, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the interview was within the chain of medical care and whether M.B. made statements intending medical diagnosis/treatment; it also evaluated ineffective‑assistance claims under Cronic and Strickland and reviewed the sufficiency challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jedlicka) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of forensic interview under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3) | Interview was part of the chain of medical care; statements were reasonably pertinent and made to obtain diagnosis/treatment | Interview was investigatory, not medical; Cleaver didn’t view video and M.B. didn’t expressly seek medical care, so 803(3) inapplicable | Admitted: interview was in the chain of care and circumstances supported inference M.B. intended medical/therapeutic assessment; 803(3) applies (dual‑purpose statements OK if medical purpose shown) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — entitlement to presumed prejudice under Cronic | N/A for State | Counsel’s aggregated errors amounted to failure to meaningfully test prosecution (warranting presumed prejudice) | Rejected: no complete failure of advocacy; Cronic inapplicable; claims assessed under Strickland |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — specific alleged errors under Strickland | N/A | Counsel failed to object to evidence, failed to call experts, failed to adequately impeach and object at trial, producing prejudice | Mixed: some discrete claims cannot be resolved on direct appeal because record is inadequate (no evidentiary showing or depositions); other claims lack prejudice on record and are denied; remand/postconviction available for unresolved claims |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (motion to dismiss) | N/A | State’s evidence insufficient—no physical injury, inconsistent statements, leading interview | Affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, testimony and other evidence sufficient for conviction; credibility and conflicts for jury to resolve |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (presumed prejudice only when counsel entirely fails to test prosecution or is absent)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (distinguishes Strickland and Cronic; counsel’s failures must be complete for Cronic)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (Cronic’s narrow application; counsel must entirely fail to function as advocate)
- 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 (explains rule 803(3) and rationale for admitting statements made for medical diagnosis/treatment)
- State v. Ash, 293 Neb. 583 (procedural standards for raising ineffective assistance on direct appeal)
- State v. Betancourt‑Garcia, 295 Neb. 170 (standard for sufficiency review and ineffective assistance legal questions)