State v. Juran, COA23-881, ___ N.C. App. ___ (May. 21, 2024)

In this Onslow County case, defendant appealed her conviction for assault on an emergency personnel, arguing a fatal variance between the offense charged and the offense proved by the State’s evidence, and the same fatal variance between the indictment and the jury instructions and verdict sheet. The Court of Appeals found no error. 

In September of 2019, Defendant called 911 after experiencing chest pains. An ambulance arrived to take defendant to the hospital, but during the trip, defendant became agitated and squeezed a paramedic’s hand so hard that the driver of the ambulance pulled over and police were called. After defendant was released from the hospital, she was arrested. While the indictment identified the victim as an “emergency medical technician” and the jury instruction and verdict sheet likewise identified the victim as an EMT, the victim testified at trial that she was a paramedic.  

Taking up defendant’s arguments, the Court of Appeals noted that G.S. 14-34.6 makes it an offense to cause physical injury to “(1) An emergency medical technician or other emergency health care provider [or] (2) A medical responder.” Slip Op. at 8. The statute does not define “emergency medical technician,” but the court explained this was “a distinction without difference for the purpose of the charging statute” and defendant would have been charged under G.S. 14-34.6 regardless of the classification of the victim. Id. at 9. The court could not identify any way that defendant was prejudiced in preparing her defense based on this discrepancy, and also noted that double jeopardy would be impossible as the victim and her employer were clearly identified. When considering the jury instruction argument, the court applied the same reasoning, noting there was no danger the jury would have reached a different result if the victim was a different classification of medical professional. The court also rejected defendant’s argument that the various terms may have called the jury’s unanimity into question, explaining “the inclusion of additional or similar terms in referencing the victim did not create additional theories on which Defendant could be convicted.” Id. at 15.