State v. Jedlicka
297 Neb. 276
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Defendant Paul Jedlicka was convicted by a jury of first-degree sexual assault of a child under 12 based on the victim M.B.’s testimony and other evidence; sentenced to 15–25 years.
- After the allegation, M.B. disclosed the assault at school; the teacher reported it to Child Protective Services and law enforcement.
- M.B. underwent a forensic interview at Project Harmony by trained interviewer April Anderson (recorded on DVD) and a medical exam by nurse practitioner Sarah Cleaver the same day.
- The trial court admitted the Project Harmony video under the hearsay medical-diagnosis/treatment exception (Neb. Evid. R. 803(3)); defense objected that statements were investigatory, not medical.
- On appeal Jedlicka challenged admission of the interview, alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and argued insufficient evidence to support conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Project Harmony interview under hearsay medical exception | State: interview was in the chain of medical care and statements were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment | Jedlicka: interview was investigatory, not intended for medical diagnosis; not in chain of care because examiner didn’t view video | Court: admission proper—forensic interview was in chain of medical care and statements were made in contemplation of medical diagnosis/treatment |
| Declarant's intent for dual-purpose statements | State: intent may be inferred from circumstances (interviewer told child she was there to help; mother consented; interviewer’s role was to guide medical/therapeutic care) | Jedlicka: no direct evidence child knew Project Harmony or that medical care would follow; setting not medical | Court: sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer intent to obtain medical diagnosis/treatment; no single fact is dispositive |
| Ineffective assistance — purported complete failure to test prosecution (Cronic) | Jedlicka: aggregate errors amounted to counsel’s failure to meaningfully test State’s case; prejudice should be presumed | State: counsel did advocate; alleged errors are bad lawyering, not total failure | Court: Cronic not met; no complete failure to adversarially test; claims assessed under Strickland instead |
| Ineffective assistance — specific failures under Strickland (objections, experts, impeachment) | Jedlicka: trial counsel failed to object, call rebuttal experts, or properly impeach witnesses, causing prejudice | State: record insufficient to resolve many claims on direct appeal; some alleged failures were strategic or unpreserved | Court: most claims either lack merit or cannot be resolved on direct appeal due to insufficient record; no demonstration of prejudice for those addressed |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict | State: evidence (victim testimony, interview, exam) supports conviction | Jedlicka: inconsistencies, no physical evidence, interview prompted by interviewer | Court: viewing evidence in State’s favor, sufficient evidence supports conviction; credibility/weight are for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (narrow circumstances where prejudice is presumed due to total or constructive denial of counsel)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (distinguishes Cronic from Strickland; counsel must entirely fail to test prosecution for Cronic to apply)
- State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (forensic interviews can be part of chain of medical care for hearsay exception)
- State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575 (discusses medical-purpose rationale for rule 803(3) and inferences of intent)
- State v. Ash, 293 Neb. 583 (standards for raising ineffective assistance on direct appeal)