State v. Jedlicka
297 Neb. 276
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Defendant Paul J. Jedlicka lived with the victim (M.B.), a 10‑year‑old, and allegedly digitally penetrated her while she slept; she disclosed the assault the next day to a former teacher who reported it.
- Law enforcement referred M.B. to Project Harmony, a child advocacy center; forensic interviewer April Anderson conducted a recorded interview while detectives observed by closed circuit.
- The interviewer’s report prompted nurse practitioner Sarah Cleaver to examine M.B.; Cleaver collected evidence and provided follow‑up care recommendations (including mental‑health referral).
- At trial the State offered the Project Harmony video (Anderson’s forensic interview) over Jedlicka’s hearsay objection; the court admitted it under the medical diagnosis/treatment exception (Neb. Evid. R. 803(3)).
- Jedlicka was convicted of first‑degree sexual assault of a child under 12 and appealed, arguing (1) erroneous admission of hearsay, (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and (3) insufficient evidence.
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 and statements were pertinent to diagnosis/treatment | Interview was investigatory hearsay, not made for medical diagnosis/treatment; thus inadmissible | Admitted: court correctly found interview within chain of medical care and admissible under rule 803(3) |
| Whether Anderson’s interview was in the chain of medical care | Forensic interview guides medical exam/treatment decisions and was relied on by the treating clinician | Not in the chain because Cleaver did not view the video and later asked similar questions herself | In chain: interviewer’s summary and role in prompting exam made it part of medical care (Vigil controlling) |
| Whether M.B. made statements with intent to obtain medical diagnosis/treatment | Circumstantial evidence (interviewer’s assurances, parent consent, interviewer’s role) supports inference of medical purpose | No direct testimony that M.B. sought medical help; setting not medically clinical so purpose was investigatory | Intent may be inferred from circumstances; court reasonably found statements made in contemplation of diagnosis/treatment |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (general and specific claims) | State: record does not show counsel’s failures meet Strickland/Cronic; some claims lack record support | Jedlicka: counsel failed to object, impeach, or present/explore experts and thus failed adversarial testing | Mostly rejected: Cronic inapplicable (no complete failure); many Strickland claims cannot be resolved on direct appeal due to insufficient record; those addressable lacked prejudice |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict | N/A (State prevailed at trial) | Evidence insufficient — inconsistent accounts, no physical injury or DNA | Denied: when viewed favorably to State, testimony and other evidence sufficient for jury to convict |
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 (presumption of prejudice only in narrow circumstances when counsel entirely fails to subject prosecution to meaningful testing)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (distinguishes Strickland and Cronic; emphasizes rarity of Cronic relief)
- State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (forensic interviews can be admissible under medical‑purpose exception when part of the chain of medical care)
- State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575 (explains rationale and requirements for Neb. Evid. R. 803(3))