State v. ScaturroÂ, 253 N.C. App. 828

Background

On July 6, 2013 Michael Scaturro struck Christopher Fisher with his vehicle while Fisher was making a U‑turn; Fisher suffered serious injuries (nearly severed ear) and was taken to the hospital.
Scaturro stopped, gave Fisher a rag, then drove Fisher to the hospital; Fisher noted Scaturro’s license plate as Scaturro left the hospital.
Trooper Kirk investigated the scene, did not find Scaturro there, later located and arrested him; Scaturro was indicted for felony hit‑and‑run (failure to remain) under N.C.G.S. § 20‑166(a) and charged as an habitual felon.
At trial the prosecution presented evidence that Scaturro left the scene and did not return; defense argued he left to obtain medical care for the injured victim (a statutory justification).
The trial court instructed the jury on the elements including that the defendant’s failure to remain was “willful, that is intentional,” but did not tell the jury that “willful” means intentional and without justification or excuse; defense did not object to the instruction.
Jury convicted Scaturro; on appeal the Court of Appeals found the omitted willfulness language was plain error and reversed and remanded for a new trial, while rejecting an unpreserved fatal‑variance challenge.

Issues

Issue	State’s Argument	Scaturro’s Argument	Held
Whether there was a fatal variance between the indictment (failure to remain) and the proof (failure to return)	No timely objection; variance not preserved and therefore not reviewable	The proof at trial established failure to return (a different offense), so indictment and proof diverged	Not reached on merits: variance issue waived for lack of preservation; appellate court declined Rule 2 relief
Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that “willful” means “without justification or excuse”	The statute does not permit leaving the scene to obtain medical care (only to call for help) so an instruction on excuse is unnecessary	Jury should be instructed that “willful” requires absence of justification or excuse because leaving to obtain medical care can be non‑willful	Reversed: omission of the “without justification or excuse” component of willfulness was plain error because willfulness was the only contested issue and the missing language could have changed the verdict
Whether leaving the scene to take an injured person to hospital is prohibited by § 20‑166(a)	(Implicit) subsection (a) limits leaving to calling for help; prosecution suggested limited leave only for calling	Leaving to obtain reasonable medical assistance is permitted by reading § 20‑166(a) and (b) together	Court: statutes construed in pari materia — transporting an injured person for medical care can be a permitted/justified departure under the statute
Whether reversal on plain‑error review was appropriate given lack of objection at trial	(Implicit) plain error standard is narrow — rarely warrants reversal	The instructional omission implicated the defendant’s sole defense and thus likely affected the verdict	Court held plain error existed and ordered new trial

Key Cases Cited

State v. Acklin, 71 N.C. App. 261 (noting willfulness as an essential element of hit‑and‑run)
State v. Ramos, 363 N.C. 352 (defining "willful" as wrongful act without justification or excuse)
State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 (plain‑error standard and requirement to show probable impact on verdict)
State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655 (plain‑error and prejudice standard)