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 testimony and a recorded forensic interview conducted at Project Harmony.
- The morning after the alleged assault, M.B. disclosed to a former teacher, who reported to Child Protective Services; law enforcement arranged a forensic interview at Project Harmony the same day.
- Forensic interviewer April Anderson (Project Harmony) conducted a recorded NCAC-protocol interview while law enforcement observed by closed-circuit video; nurse practitioner Sarah Cleaver relied on Anderson’s summary to conduct a medical exam and decide on evidence collection.
- At trial Jedlicka objected that the Project Harmony video (Exhibit 2) was inadmissible hearsay; the district court admitted it under the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment exception (Neb. Evid. R. 803(3)).
- Jedlicka also raised ineffective-assistance claims about trial counsel’s performance (failure to object to certain evidence; failure to present experts; cross-examination choices) and moved for dismissal for insufficiency of evidence; the motion was denied.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the recorded forensic interview admissible under Rule 803(3), rejecting the Cronic-based claim of presumed prejudice, and finding the record insufficient to resolve certain Strickland-based claims on direct appeal but ultimately concluding the evidence supported the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jedlicka) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Project Harmony video under medical-diagnosis-or-treatment hearsay exception (Rule 803(3)) | Interview was part of chain of medical care; statements reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment and intended to obtain medical help | Interview was investigatory, not in chain of medical care; declarant lacked intent to obtain medical diagnosis/treatment; not sufficiently medical | Court: Admissible. Forensic interview was in chain of medical care and the child’s statements were reasonably made in contemplation of diagnosis/treatment. |
| Whether M.B.’s statements were made with intent to obtain medical diagnosis/treatment | Circumstantial evidence (interviewer’s statements, forensic purpose, mother’s consent, interviewer’s role in guiding medical care) supports inference of medical purpose | No direct testimony M.B. knew Project Harmony or sought medical help; interview setting not clearly medical | Court: Intent may be inferred from circumstances; sufficient circumstantial evidence to find statements made for medical diagnosis/treatment. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — claim invoking Cronic (presumed prejudice) | Aggregate trial counsel failures deprived Jedlicka of meaningful adversarial testing; prejudice should be presumed | Counsel actively represented client; failures are errors of advocacy (bad lawyering), not complete failure to test prosecution | Court: Cronic not applicable. No complete failure to subject case to meaningful testing; evaluate under Strickland instead. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — specific Strickland claims (failure to object, impeachment, expert witnesses) | Specific omissions prejudiced defense and affected outcome | Many issues are record-insufficient; some lack prejudice; trial strategy unclear on record | Court: Some claims lack merit (e.g., failure to object to diagram); many expert/impeachment claims cannot be resolved on direct appeal due to insufficient record — preserve for postconviction review. |
| Sufficiency of evidence | State: Victim testimony + corroborating evidence (teacher report, forensic interview, medical follow-up) sufficient | Defendant: Inconsistent accounts, no physical evidence, forensic interview prompted details | Court: Viewing evidence most favorably to State, sufficient evidence supports conviction; denial of motion to dismiss affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (narrow circumstances where prejudice is presumed because counsel entirely fails to test prosecution)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2002) (distinguishes Strickland from Cronic; highlights rarity of presumed-prejudice Cronic claims)
- State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (Neb. 2012) (forensic interviews can be within chain of medical care and admissible under medical-diagnosis exception)
- State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575 (Neb. 2014) (discusses rationale of Rule 803(3): reliability from motive to obtain accurate medical history)