)U5
C.3
^ovt\\ (Earolma (Enurte
o
—
i
o
OT
3
.>
CO
GO
'CO
p
Oc
S
rr.
-h
CO
1986-87
JVttmral Report
of t\\e
^mmtstrattOe Office of%(Eourts
The Cover: The Johnston County Courthouse in Smithfield, North Carolina, is represen-tative
of the Neo-Classical Revival at its most monumental scale. This courthouse was
completed in 1921. The cut stone veneered structure is rectangular in shape, three stories
high, and is fronted hy a four-columned portico. The level roofline is defined by a stone
balustrade. Johnston County is located in the central region of the State. Smithfield was
established as the county seat in 1777.
NORTH CAROLINA COURTS
1986-87
ANNUAL REPORT
of the
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
JUSTICE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
The Honorable James G. Exum, Jr., Chief Justice
The Supreme Court of North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Chief Justice:
In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes, I herewith transmit the
Twenty-first Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1,
1986 — June 30, 1987.
Fiscal year 1986-87 marks the third consecutive year with significant increases in filings and dispositions
in both the Superior and District Courts. During 1986-87, as compared to 1985-86, total case filings
increased by 8.3% in Superior Court and by 1 1.1% in District Court; dispositions increased by 9.3% in
Superior Court and by 9.9% in District Court. Because total filings were greater than total dispositions,
more cases were pending at the end of the fiscal year than were pending at the beginning.
Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, and
writing required to produce this annual report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, principal
responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Information Services Division.
The principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of the clerks of
superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of the State. The Clerk of the Supreme Court
and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals provided the case data relating to our appellate courts.
Without the responsible work of many persons across the State this report would not have been possible.
Respectfully submitted,
U<uJkiL:
Franklin Freeman, Jr.
Director
February, 1988
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1987nort
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Parti
The 1986-87 Judicial Year in Review
The 1986-87 Judicial Year in Review 1
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations in 1986-87
Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 5
The Present Court System 8
Organization and Operations
The Supreme Court 12
The Court of Appeals 24
The Superior Courts 32
The District Courts 35
District Attorneys 38
Clerks of Superior Court 41
Juvenile Services Division 43
Public Defenders 45
Appellate Defender 46
The N.C. Courts Commission 47
The Judicial Standards Commission 49
Part III
Court Resources in 1986-87
Judicial Department Finances
Appropriations 53
Expenditures 56
Receipts 58
Distribution of Receipts 59
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 62
Judicial Department Personnel 70
Part IV
Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1986-87
Trial Courts Case Data 73
Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 77
District Court Division Caseflow Data 137
Tables, Charts and Graphs
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations in 1986-87
Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the
Present Court System 8
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina
Trial Courts 11
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 12
Supreme Court. Caseload Inventory 14
Supreme Court. Appeals Filed 15
Supreme Court. Petitions Filed 15
Supreme Court. Caseload Types 16
Supreme Court, Submission of Cases to Decision Stage 17
Supreme Court, Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 17
Supreme Court, Disposition of Appeals 18
Supreme Court, Manner of Disposition of Appeals 19
Supreme Court, Type of Disposition of Petitions 19
Supreme Court, Pending Cases 20
Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Disposed of,
1980-81—1986-87 21
Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed,
1980-81 —1986-87 22
Supreme Court, Processing Time for Disposed Cases 23
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 24
Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 26
Court of Appeals, Inventory of Cases Appealed 27
Court of Appeals, Manner of Disposition of Cases 28
Court of Appeals, Inventory of Motions and Petitions 29
Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1981—1986-87 30
Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 31
Judges of Superior Court 32
District Court Judges 35
District Attorneys 38
Clerks of Superior Court 41
Chief Court Counselors 44
Public Defenders 45
Appellate Defenders 46
The N.C. Courts Commission 47
The Judicial Standards Commission 49
Part III
Court Resources in 1986-87
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department 53
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department 54
Tables, Charts and Graphs
General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of All
State Agencies and Judicial Department 55
General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations 56
Judicial Department Receipts 58
Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 59
Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the
Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 60
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 63
Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 64
Assigned Counsel, Cases and Expenditures 65
Judicial Department Personnel 70
Part IV
Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1986-87
Caseload Trends 78
Caseload 79
Median Ages of Cases 80
Civil Cases Trends 81
Civil Case Filings By Case-Type 82
Civil Cases Inventory 83
Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition 87
Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, By County 88
Ages of Civil Cases Pending 92
Ages of Civil Cases Disposed 96
Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 100
Filings and Dispositions For Estates and Special Proceedings 101
Trends in Criminal Cases 105
Criminal Case Filings By Case-Type 106
Inventory of Criminal Cases 107
Manner of Disposition of Felonies Ill
Manner of Disposition of Felonies, By County 112
Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors 116
Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors, By County 117
Ages of Criminal Cases Pending 121
Ages of Criminal Cases Disposed 128
District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 139
District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of All Cases 140
District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 141
District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Cases 142
District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Filings By Case-Type 143
District Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory 144
District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 148
District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, By County 149
District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Pending 156
District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Disposed 160
District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer Cases Pending 164
District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer Cases Disposed 168
District Courts, Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions 172
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
in
Tables, Charts and Graphs
District Courts. Matters Alleged in Juvenile Petitions 174
District Courts, Adjudicatory Hearings For Juvenile Matters 178
District Courts, Trends of Criminal Cases 183
District Courts. Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions 184
District Courts. Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory 188
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 192
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition, By County 193
District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Pending 197
District Courts. Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Disposed 201
District Courts. Infraction Case Filings and Dispositions 205
IV
PARTI
THE 1986-1987 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
THE 1986-87 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
This Annual Report on the work of North Carolina's
Judicial Department is for the fiscal year which began
July 1, 1986 and ended June 30, 1987.
The Workload of the Courts
Case filings in the Supreme Court totaled 196 com-pared
with 209 filed during 1985-86. A total of 674 peti-tions
were filed in the Supreme Court, compared with 733
in 1985-86; and 99 petitions were allowed, compared with
129 in 1985-86.
For the Court of Appeals for 1986-87, case filings were
1,288 compared with 1,381 for the 1985-86 year. Petitions
filed in 1986-87 totaled 458, compared with 546 during the
1985-86 year.
More detailed data on the appellate courts is included
in Part II of this Annual Report.
In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal)
increased by 8.3% to a total of 98,886 in 1986-87, com-pared
with 91,336 cases in 1985-86. Superior court case
dispositions also increased, to a total of 96,308, compared
with 88,089 in 1985-86. As case filings during the year
exceeded case dispositions, the total number of cases
pending at the end of the year increased by 2,578.
Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital
commitment hearings, the statewide total of district court
filings (civil and criminal) during 1986-87 was 1,868,985,
an increase of 186,664 (11.1%) from 1985-86 filings of
1 ,682,32 1 cases. This total includes a new case category in
the district courts: infractions. Effective September 1,
1986, many minor traffic offenses were decriminalized
and thereafter prosecuted as infractions. Infractions are
defined as non-criminal violations of law, not punishable
by imprisonment. Nearly all infraction offenses were clas-sified
as criminal motor vehicle cases in prior years. Dur-ing
1986-87, a total of 486,994 infraction cases were filed
along with a total of 488,494 criminal motor vehicle cases,
for a combined total of 975,488 cases. This combined
total is an increase of 136,320 cases (16.2%) above the
839,168 criminal motor vehicle cases filed during 1985-86.
During 1986-87, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle
cases in the district courts increased by 22,292 (5.0%) to
468,131, compared with 445,839 during 1985-86. Filings
of civil magistrate cases in the district courts increased by
21,41 1 (9.5%), to 247,455 during 1986-87 compared with
226,044 during 1985-86.
Operations of the superior and district courts are sum-marized
in Part II of this Report, and detailed informa-tion
on the caseloads in the 100 counties and 34 judicial
districts is presented in Part IV.
1987 Legislative Highlights
Superior Court Redisricting
Chapter 509 of the 1987 Session Laws rewrote G.S..
7A-41 pertaining to judicial districts for the superior
courts. The new legislation is effective January 1 , 1 989 for
administrative purposes and effective in 1988 for pur-poses
of electing superior court judges. The result is to
increase superior court judge districts from 34 to 60 for
election purposes, and from 34 to 44 for administrative
purposes only. Current superior court districts, 3, 4, 6, 8,
16, 19 A, 20, 25, and 30 were divided into two districts each
for court administration and election purposes; district 7
was divided into two districts for administration purposes
and into three districts for election purposes; district 12
was divided into three districts for election purposes; and
current single county districts 10, 14, 18, 21, and 26 were
divided into two or more districts each for election pur-poses
only. The existing eight special judge positions
(appointed by the Governor for four year terms) were
phased out, effective January 1, 1989, being replaced by
regular superior court positions to be filled by election
during 1988. (Two additional special judge positions were
created by Chapter 509, but these are apparently to be
replaced by regular resident judge positions in January
1991.) The 1987 legislation on superior court redistricting
is subject to review under the Federal Voting Rights Act
of 1965, and the act was precleared by the United States
Department of Justice on September 25, 1987.
Judicial Selection Study Commission
The 1987 General Assembly in Chapter 873 established
the Judicial Selection Study Commission to "study the
method of selecting judges in North Carolina and recom-mend
any changes needed to improve the system." The
Commission will have 20 members: four appointed by the
Governor, four appointed by the Lieutenant Governor,
four appointed by the Speaker of the House of Represen-tatives,
four appointed by the Chief Justice, and four
appointed by the Attorney General. The Lieutenant Gov-ernor
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
each designates a cochairman of the Commission. The
legislation further provides that the Commission is to
report its findings and recommendations to the Gover-nor,
the General Assembly, the Chief Justice, and the
Attorney General by February 15, 1989.
AOC Studies
The 1987 General Assembly in Chapter 19 directed the
Administrative Office of the Courts to conduct a study
concerning the use of presentence reports by judges,
addressing the following issues: ( 1 ) current use of present-ence
reports; (2) when the reports should be prepared; (3)
who should prepare them; (4) their contents; and (5)
whether the presentence reports should be mandatory for
any, or all, offenses. The Administrative Office of the
Courts is to submit a written report to the General
Assembly prior to the convening of the 1988 Session of
the 1987 General Assembly.
Chapter 738 directed the Administrative Office of the
Courts to study the potential for receiving federal reim-bursement
for the costs of administration of child support
enforcement services. The results of this study are to be
reported to the Joint Appropriations Committees on Jus-tice
and Public Safety by May 1, 1988.
THE 1986-87 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
Life Sentence Appeals
G.S. 7A-27 was amended by Chapter 679 of the 1987
Session Laws to provide that only persons sentenced to
death or life imprisonment for first-degree murder are
entitled to an automatic review of their conviction by
the North Carolina Supreme Court. Appeals of life
sentences in second-degree murder, rape and sex offense
cases will now go to the Court of Appeals, and any
further review of such cases by the Supreme Court will
be discretionary rather than a matter of right.
Appellate Reports
Chapter 404 of the 1987 Session Laws amended G.S.
7A-6 to authorize the Supreme Court to designate a
commercial law publisher's reports and advance sheets
as the official reports of the Appellate Division, and to
authorize the Administrative Officer of the Courts to
contract with a commercial law publisher to print and
sell appellate reports and advance sheets. These author-izations
are in addition to present statutory provisions
in G.S. 7A-6 pertaining to publication of the appellate
reports.
Community Penalties Program
Chapter 862 of the 1987 Session Laws transferred the
Buncombe County Community Penalties Program and
funds previously allocated to it to the Administrative
Office of the Courts. (The Buncombe County program
had been funded by grants from the Department of
Crime Control and Public Safety and from local funds.
Other community penalties programs will continue to
be so funded.) The Buncombe program will now be
under the supervision of the chief district judge for the
28th District, and its employees will be state employees.
Emergency Judges
Chapter 738 of the 1987 Session Laws provides that
trial judges with eight (instead of 12) years of service
may become emergency judges.
Worthless Check Jurisdiction
Chapter 355 provides that the jurisdiction of magis-trates
and clerks to accept written appearances, waiver
of trial and plea of guilty in worthless check cases is
increased to cases involving checks up to $1,000 (pre-viously
S500); and magistrates may now hear and decide
not guilty pleas in worthless check cases involving
checks up to SI. 000.
Jurors
Chapter 702 enacted G.S. 9-2 to prohibit an employer
from firing or demoting an employee because the
employee was called for either petit or grand jury duty.
The employee has the right to a court action for rein-statement
and reasonable damage in the event an
employer violates the new statute.
Incompetence and Guardianship Laws Rewritten
The product of over two years' work by a committee
established jointly by the Administrative Office of the
Courts and the Division of Social Services, a thorough
rewrite of North Carolina's guardianship laws was
enacted by the 1987 General Asembly. The new law
(Chapter 550), codified in the General Statutes as
Chapter 35A, entitled "Incompetence and Guardian-ship,"
replaces Chapters 33 and 35, and consolidates all
statutory provisions for adjudicating a person to be
incompetent, appointing and establishing the powers of
guardians of incompetent persons and of minors, ac-counting
by guardians, and managing the estates of
wards.
Salaries
Funds were appropriated by the 1987 General As-sembly
for a 10% pay raise for district court judges, and
a 5% pay increase for other officials and employees of
the Judicial Department. No funding for merit increases
was provided.
New Positions
Judicial Department appropriations for fiscal year
1987-88 provide the following new positions: two spe-cial
superior court judgeships (effective August 1, 1987);
five assistant district attorneys (one each for Districts
11, 25, 27A, 27B, and 29); ten victim-witness coordina-tors
and three secretaries for district attorneys; three
assistant public defenders; two assistant appellate de-fenders;
two magistrates; seven district court secretaries;
30 deputy clerks of superior court; one trial court
administrator; and 26 positions in the juvenile court
counselor program.
For the 1988-89 fiscal year, appropriations were pro-vided
for the following new positions: eleven district
court judgeships (to be filled in the 1988 general elec-tion
for Districts 3, 5, 7, 10, 1 1, 16, 18, 19B, 21, 25, and
26); one superior court judgeship to be filled in the 1988
general election; five assistant district attorneys, three
secretaries and ten victim-witness coordinators for dis-trict
attorney offices; five magistrates; one court repor-ter;
one deputy clerk; and ten secretarial positions.
Total Appropriations
The 1987 Session of the General Assembly approp-riated
a total of $158,596,135 to the Judicial Depart-ment
for the 1987-88 fiscal year. For the 1988-89 fiscal
year, the total appropriated is $165,653,510, which is
subject to revision by the 1988 legislative session.
PART II
COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION
AND OPERATIONS
• Historical Development of Court System
• Present Court System
• Organization and Operations in 1986-87
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
From its early colonial period North Carolina's judicial
system has been the focus of periodic attention and adjust-ment.
Through the years, there has been a repeated
sequence of critical examination, proposals for reform, and
finally the enactment of some reform measures.
Colonial Period
Around 1700 the royal governor established a General
(or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute developed
over the appointment of associate justices. The Assembly
conceded to the King the right to name the chiefjustice but
unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the power to appoint
the associate justices. Other controversies developed con-cerning
the creation and jurisdiction of the courts and the
tenure of judges. As for the latter, the Assembly's position
was that judge appointments should be for good behavior
as against the royal governor's decision for life appoint-ment.
State historians have noted that "the Assembly won
its fight to establish courts and the judicial structure in the
province was grounded on laws enacted by the legislature,"
which was more familiar with local conditions and needs
(Lefler and Newsome, 142). Nevertheless, North Carolina
alternated between periods under legislatively enacted
reforms (like good behavior tenure and the Court Bill of
1746, which contained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary
court system) and periods of stalemate and anarchy after
such enactments were nullified by royal authority. A more
elaborate system was framed by legislation in 1767 to last
five years. It was not renewed because of persisting dis-agreement
between local and royal partisans. As a result,
North Carolina was without higher courts until after Inde-pendence
(Battle, 847).
At the lower court level during the colonial period, judi-cial
and county government administrative functions were
combined in the authority of the justices of the peace, who
were appointed by the royal governor.
After the Revolution
When North Carolina became a state in 1 776, the colon-ial
structure of the court system was retained largely intact.
The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the county
court which continued in use from about 1670 to 1868
—were still held by the assembled justices of the peace in
each county. The justices were appointed by the governor
on the recommendation of the General Assembly, and they
were paid out of fees charged litigants. On the lowest level
of the judicial system, magistrate courts of limited jurisdic-tion
were held by justices of the peace, singly or in pairs,
while the county court was out of term.
The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the General
Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of Law
and Equity. A court law enacted a year later authorized
three superior court judges and created judicial districts.
Sessions were supposed to be held in the court towns of
each district twice a year, under a system much like the one
that had expired in 1772. Just as there had been little
distinction in terminology between General Court and
Supreme Court prior to the Revolution, the terms Supreme
Court and Superior Court were also interchangeable dur-ing
the period immediately following the Revolution.
One of the most vexing governmental problems con-fronting
the new State of North Carolina was its judiciary.
"From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary caused
complaint and demands for reform. "(Lefler and Newsome,
291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflicting judge opin-ions,
and insufficient number of judges, and lack of means
for appeal were all cited as problems, although the greatest
weakness was considered to be the lack of a real Supreme
Court.
In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court
judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court of Conference
to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the districts.
This court was continued and made permanent by subse-quent
laws. The justices were required to put their opinions
in writing to be delivered orally in court. The Court of
Conference was changed in name to the Supreme Court in
1 805 and authorized to hear appeals in 1810. Because of the
influence of the English legal system, however, there was
still no conception of an alternative to judges sitting
together to hear appeals from cases which they had them-selves
heard in the districts in panels of as few as two judges
(Battle, 848). In 1818, though, an independent three-judge
Supreme Court was created for review of cases decided at
the Superior Court level.
Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in each
county were made mandatory in 1806, and the State was
divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the six judges
were to sit in rotation, two judges constituting a quorum as
before.
The County Court of justices of the peace continued
during this period as the lowest court and as the agency of
local government.
After the Civil War
Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it
more democratic were made in 1868. A primary holdover
from the English legal arrangement - the distinction
between law and equity proceedings — was abolished. The
County Court's control of local government was abolished.
Capital offenses were limited to murder, arson, burglary
and rape, and the Constitution stated that the aim of
punishment was "not only to satisfy justice, but also to
reform the offender, and thus prevent crime". The member-ship
of the Supreme Court was raised to five, and the
selection of the justices (including the designation of the
chiefjustice) and superior court judges (raised in number to
12) was taken from the legislature and given to the voters,
although vacancies were to be filled by the governor until
the next election. The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions
- The County Court of which three justices of the peace
constituted a quorum - - was eliminated. Its judicial
responsibilities were divided between the Superior Courts
and the individual justices of the peace, who were retained
as separate judicial officers with limited jurisdiction.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868
Constitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme
Court justices to three and the Superior Court judges to
nine. The General Assembly was given the power to
appoint justices of the peace, instead of the governor.
Most of the modernizing changes in the post-Civil War
Constitution, however, were left, and the judicial struc-ture
it had established continued without systematic
modification through more than half of the 20th cen-tury.
(A further constitutional amendment approved by
the voters in November, 1888, returned the Supreme
Court membership to five, and the number of superior
court judges to twelve.)
Before Reorganization
A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising
demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily
encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time sys-tematic
court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. This
accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the court
system was most evident at the lower, local court level,
where hundreds of courts specially created by statute
operated with widely dissimilar structure and jurisdiction.
By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent
major reforms was begun, the court system in North
Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme Court,
with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior court, with
general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statutory courts
of limited jurisdiction, and (d) justices of the peace and
mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction.
At the superior court level, the State had been divided
into 30 judicial districts and 21 solicitorial districts. The
38 superior court judges (who rotated among the coun-ties)
and the district solicitors were paid by the State.
The clerk of superior court, who was judge of probate
and often also a juvenile judge, was a county official.
There were specialized branches of superior court in
some counties for matters like domestic relations and
juvenile offenses.
The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher
of these local court levels were more than 180 recorder-type
courts. Among these were the county recorder's
courts, municipal recorder's courts and township re-corder's
courts; the general county courts, county crim-inal
courts and special county courts; the domestic rela-tions
courts and the juvenile courts. Some of these had
been established individually by special legislative acts
more than a half-century earlier. Others had been created
by general law across the State since 1919. About half
were county courts and half were city or township
courts. Jurisdiction included misdemeanors (mostly
traffic offenses), preliminary hearings and sometimes
civil matters. The judges, who were usually part-time,
were variously elected or appointed locally.
At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and
some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had sim-ilar
criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties
up to a S50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the
peace also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These
court officials were compensated by the fees they
exacted, and they provided their own facilities.
Court Reorganization
The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revi-sion
of the court system received the attention and sup-port
of Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who
encouraged the leadership of the North Carolina Bar
Association to pursue the matter. A Court Study Com-mittee
was established as an agency of the North Carol-ina
Bar Association, and that Committee issued its
report, calling for reorganization, at the end of 1958. A
legislative Constitutional Commission, which worked
with the Court Study Committee, finished its report
early the next year. Both groups called for the structur-ing
of an all-inclusive court system which would be
directly state-operated, uniform in its organization
throughout the State and centralized in its administra-tion.
The plan was for a simplified, streamlined and
unified structure. A particularly important part of the
proposal was the elimination of the local satutory courts
and their replacement by a single District Court; the
office of justice of the peace was to be abolished, and
the newly fashioned position of magistrate would func-tion
within the District Court as a subordinate judicial
office.
Constitutional amendments were introduced in the
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were
reintroduced and approved at the 1961 session. The
Constitutional amendments were approved by popular
vote in 1962, and three years later the General Assem-bly
enacted statutes to put the system into effect by
stages. By the end of 1970 all of the counties and their
courts had been incorporated into the new system,
whose unitary nature was symbolized by the name,
General Court of Justice. The designation of the entire
20th century judicial system as a single, statewide
"court," with components for various types and levels
of caseload, was adapted from North Carolina's earlier
General Court, whose full venue extended to all of the
17th century counties.
After Reorganization
Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has con-tinued.
In 1965, the Constitution was amended to pro-vide
for the creation of an intermediate Court of
Appeals. It was amended again in 1972 to allow for the
Supreme Court to censure or remove judges upon the
recommendation of a Judicial Standards Commission.
As for the selection of judges, persistent efforts were
made in the 1970's to obtain legislative approval of
amendments to the State Constitution, to appoint judges
according to "merit" instead of electing them by popu-lar,
partisan vote. The proposed amendments received
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
the backing of a majority of the members of each Hinsdale, C. E., County Government in North Carolina. 1965
house, but not the three-fifths required to submit con- Edition.
. . r i i t Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina:
stitutional amendments to a vote of the people. It seems The History ofa Southern State, , 963 Edition .
likely that this significant issue will be before the Sanders, John L., Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A
General Assembly again for consideration. Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of
Government.
Major Sources Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold, North Carolina Courts of
Battle, Kemp P., An Address on the History of the Supreme Court Law and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular
(Delivered in 1888). 1 North Carolina Reports 835-876. 1973.
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal
Recommendations
from Judicial
Standards Commission
Original Jurisdiction
All felony cases; civil
cases in excess of
SI 0.000*
SUPERIOR
COURTS
72 Judges
Final Order of i
Utilities Commission in
General Rate Case
COURT OF
APPEALS
/ 2 Judges
Decisions of
Most Administrative
Agencies
Original Jurisdiction
Probate and estates,
special proceedings
'condemnations,
adoptions, partitions,
foreclosures, etcj
\2)
\l
criminal cases
(for trial de novo)
civil cases
I
DISTRICT
COURTS
151 Judges
Clerks of Superior
Court
(100)
Magistrates
(637)
Decisions of Industrial
Commission, State Bar,
Property Tax Commission,
Commissioner of Insurance,
Bd. of State Contract Appeals
Original Jurisdiction
Misdemeanor cases not
assigned to magistrates;
probable cause hearings;
civil cases $10,000* or
less; juvenile proceedings;
domestic relations;
involuntary commitments
Original Jurisdiction
Accept certain misdemeanor
guilty pleas: worthless check
misdemeanors $1,000** or less;
small claims $1,500 or less
( 1 ) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving comstitutional
questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may review Court of Appeals
decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance.
(2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals.
(3; As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in criminal cases in which the defendent has been sentenced to death or life
imprisonment, and in civil cases involving the involuntary annexation of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or more population. In all other cases
appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the trial courts in cases where delay
would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full. (Under G.S. 7A-27, effective July 24, 1987, appeals in criminal cases
as a matter of right are limited to first degree murder cases in which there is a sentence of death or life imprisonment.)
*The district and superiorcourts have concurrent original jurisdiction in civil actions (G.S. 7A-242). However, the district court division is \Mt proper
division for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less; and the superior court division is the proper division for the
trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (G.S. 7A-243).
"Magistrate jurisdiction in worthless check cases increased from $500 to $1,000 effective October I, 1987
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab-lishes
the General Court of Justice which "shall constitute
a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction,
operation, and administration, and shall consist of an
Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a
District Court Division."
The Appellate Division is comprised of the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals.
The Superior Court Division is comprised of the super-ior
courts which hold sessions in the county seats of the
100 counties of the State. The counties are grouped into
judicial districts (34 at the present time), and one or more
superior court judges are elected for each of the judicial
districts. A clerk of the superior court for each county is
elected by the voters of the county.
The District Court Division is comprised of the district
courts. The General Assembly is authorized to divide the
State into a convenient number of local court districts and
prescribe where the district courts shall sit, but district
court must sit in at least one place in each county. The
General Assembly has provided that districts for pur-poses
of the district court are coterminous with superior
court judicial districts. The Constitution also provides for
one or more magistrates to be appointed in each county
"who shall be officers of the district court."
The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains
the term, "judicial department," stating that "The General
Assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial
department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully
pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the govern-ment,
nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other
than as permitted by this Article." The terms, "General
Court of Justice" and "Judicial Department" are almost,
but not quite, synonymous. It may be said that the Judi-cial
Department encompasses all of the levels of court
designated as the General Court of Justice plus all admin-istrative
and ancillary services within the Judicial Depart-ment.
The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal between
the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of
courts are illustrated in the chart on the opposite page.
Criminal Cases
Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original juris-diction
of the district courts. Some misdemeanor offenses
are tried by magistrates, who are also empowered to
accept pleas of guilty to certain offenses and impose fines
in accordance with a schedule set by the Conference of
Chief District Court Judges. Most trials of misdemeanors
are by district court judges, who also hold preliminary,
"probable cause" hearings in felony cases. Trial of felony
cases is within the jurisdiction of the superior courts.
Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the district
court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by jury
available at the district court level; appeal from the dis-trict
courts' judgments in criminal cases is to the superior
courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in life-imprisonment
or death sentence cases (which are appealed
to the Supreme Court), appeal from the superior courts is
to the Court of Appeals.
Civil Cases
The 100 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges of
probate and have original jurisdiction in probate and
estates matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction over
such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, con-demnations
under the authority of eminent domain, and
foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the
superior court.
The district courts have original jurisdiction in juvenile
proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for invol-untary
commitment to a mental hospital, and are the
"proper" courts for general civil cases where the amount
in controversy is $10,000 or less. If the amount in con-troversy
is $1,500 or less and the plaintiff in the case so
requests, the chief district court judge may assign the case
for initial hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates' decisions
may be appealed to the district court. Trial by jury for
civil cases is available in the district courts; appeal from
the judgment of a district court in a civil case is to the
North Carolina Court of Appeals.
The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of
general civil cases where the amount in controversy is
more than $10,000. Appeals from decisions of most
administrative agencies are first within the jurisdiction of
the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in
civil cases is to the Court of Appeals.
Administration
The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general
power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of
the other courts of the General Court of Justice." (G.S.
7A-32(b)).
In addition to this grant of general supervisory power,
the North Carolina General Statutes provide certain
Judicial Department officials with specific powers and
responsibilities for the operation of the court system. The
Supreme Court has the responsibility for prescribing
rules of practice and procedures for the appellate courts
and for prescribing rules for the trial courts to supplement
those prescribed by statute. The Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court designates one of the judges of the Court
of Appeals to be its Chief Judge, who in turn is responsi-ble
for scheduling the sessions of the Court of Appeals.
The chart on page 1 1 illustrates specific responsibilities
for administration of the trial courts vested in Judicial
Department officials by statute. The Chief Justice
appoints the Director and an Assistant Director of the
Administrative Office of the Courts; this Assistant Direc-tor
also serves as the Chief Justice's administrative assist-ant.
The schedule of sessions of superior court in the 100
counties is set by the Supreme Court; assignment of the
State's rotating superior court judges is the responsibility
of the Chief Justice. Finally, the Chief Justice designates a
chief district court judge for each of the State's 34 judicial
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
districts from among the elected district court judges of
the respective districts. These judges have responsibilities
for the scheduling of the district courts and magistrates'
courts within their respective districts, along with other
administrative responsibilities.
The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible
for direction of non-judicial, administrative and business
affairs of the Judicial Department. Included among its
functions are fiscal management, personnel services,
information and statistical services, supervision of record
keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, liaison with the
legislative and executive departments of government,
court facility evaluation, purchase and contract, educa-tion
and training, coordination of the program for provi-sion
of legal counsel to indigent persons, juvenile proba-tion
and after-care, trial court administrator services,
planning, and general administrative services.
The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk
for both the superior and district courts. Until 1980, the
clerk also served as chairman of the county's calendar
committee, which set the civil case calendars. Effective
July 1, 1980, these committees were eliminated; day-to-day
calendaring of civil cases is now done by the clerk of
superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in some
districts, under the supervision of the senior resident
superior court judge and chief district court judge. The
criminal case calendars in both superior and district
courts are set by the district attorney of the respective
district.
10
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts
(34) Senior Resident
Judges; (100) Clerks
of Superior Court
SUPERIOR
COURTS
CHIEF JUSTICE
and
SUPREME COURT
2
i
Administrative
Office of
the Courts
(35) District
Attorneys
(34) Chief District
Court Judges
DISTRICT
COURTS
'The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other trial
courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court judges, who
rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice.
2The Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the
pleasure of the Chief Justice.
3 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other trial
courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge in each of the 34judicial districts from thejudges elected in
the respective districts.
4The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the
Judicial Department.
5The district attorney sets the criminal-case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and
the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their respective
courts.
6 In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping
functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the supervision of the
chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees submitted by the clerk
of superior court.
11
THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA*
Chief Justice
JAMES G. EXUM, JR.
LOUIS B. MEYER
BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR.
HARRY C. MARTIN
Associate Justices
HENRY E. FRYE
JOHN WEBB
WILLIS P. WHICHARD
Retired Chief Justices
WILLIAM H. BOBBITT
SUSIE SHARP
JOSEPH BRANCH
Retired Justices
I. BEVERLY LAKE
J. FRANK HUSKINS
DAVID M. BRITT
J. WILLIAM COPELAND
Clerk
J. Gregory Wallace
Librarian
Frances H. Hall
*Asof30 June 1987.
12
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
The Supreme Court
At the apex of the North Carolina court system is the
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to
consider and decide questions of law presented in civil
and criminal cases on appeal. The Chief Justice and six
associate justices are elected to eight-year terms by the
voters of the State. There are two terms of the Supreme
Court each year: a Spring Term commencing on the first
Tuesday in February and a Fall Term commencing on the
first Tuesday in September. The Court does not sit in
panels. It sits only en banc, that is, all members sitting on
each case.
Jurisdiction
The only original case jurisdiction exercised by the
Supreme Court is in the censure and removal of judges
upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judicial
Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jurisdic-tion
includes:
- cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals
(cases involving substantial constitutional ques-tions
and cases in which there has been dissent in
the Court of Appeals);
- cases on appeal by right from the Utilities Commis-sion
(cases involving final order or decision in a
general rate matter);
- criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior
courts (cases in which the defendant has been sen-tenced
to death or life imprisonment); and
- cases in which review has been granted in the
Supreme Court's discretion.
Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly
from the trial courts may be granted when delay would
likely cause subsantial harm or when the workload of the
Appellate Division is such that the expeditious adminis-tration
of justice requires it. However, most appeals are
heard only after review by the Court of Appeals.
Administration
The Supreme Court has general power to supervise and
control the proceedings of the other courts of the General
Court of Justice. The Court has specific power to pre-scribe
the rules of practice and procedure for the trial
court divisions, consistent with any rules enacted by the
General Assembly. The schedule of superior court ses-sions
in the 100 counties is approved yearly, by the
Supreme Court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court, the
Librarian of the Supreme Court Library, and the Appel-late
Division Reporter are appointed by the Supreme
Court.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and
an Assistant Director, who serve at the pleasure of the
Chief Justice. He also designates a Chief Judge from
among the judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief
District Court Judge from among the district judges in
each of the State's 34judicial districts. He assigns superior
court judges, who regularly rotate from district to district,
to the scheduled sessions of superior court in the 100
counties, and he is also empowered to transfer district
court judges to other districts for temporary or special-ized
duty. The Chief Justice appoints three of the seven
members of the Judicial Standards Commission—a judge
of the Court of Appeals who serves as the Commission's
chairman, one superior court judge and one district court
judge. The Chief Justice also appoints six of the 24 voting
members of the N.C. Courts Commission: one associate
justice of the Supreme Court; one Court of Appeals
judge; two superior court judges; and two district court
judges. The Chief Justice also appoints the Appellate
Defender, and the Chief Hearing Officer of the Office of
Administrative Hearings.
Expenses of the Court, 1986-87
Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the
1986-87 fiscal year amounted to $2, 28 1,1 61, an increase of
10.6% over total 1985-86 expenditures of $2,063,229.
Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 1986-87 con-stituted
1.5% of all General Fund expenditures for the
operation of the entire Judicial Department during the
fiscal year.
Case Data, 1986-87
A total of 364 appealed cases were before the Supreme
Court during the fiscal year, 168 that were pending on
July 1, 1986 plus 196 cases filed through June 30, 1987. A
total of 200 of these cases were disposed of, leaving 164
cases pending on June 30, 1987.
A total of 80 1 petitions (requests to appeal) were before
the Court during the 1986-87 year, with 635 disposed
during the year and 166 pending as of June 30, 1987. The
Court granted 99 petitions for review during 1986-87
compared to 129 for 1985-86.
More detailed data on the Court's workload is pres-ented
on the following pages.
13
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
Supreme Court Caseload Inventory
July 1, 1986-June 30, 1987
Petitions for Review
Civil domestic
Juvenile
Other civil
Criminal
Postconviction remedy
Administrative agency decision
Total Petitions for Review
Pending Pending
7/1/86 Filed Disposed 6/30/87
3 24 22 5
2 4 5 1
63 269 269 63
39 316 277 78
14 29 33 10
6 32 29 9
127 674 635 166
Appeals
Civil domestic
Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals
Juvenile
Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals
Other civil
Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment
Other criminal
Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals
Petitions for review granted that became postconviction
remedy cases
Administrative agency decision
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of
administrative agency decision
Total Appeals
Other Proceedings
Rule 16(b) additional issues re dissent
Extraordinary writs
Requests for advisory opinion
Rule amendments
Motions
Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear
Total Other Proceedings
2 2
1 3 2 2
1 2 3
23 29 30 22
20 31 29 22
14 17 7 24
65 78 74 69
17 8 20 5
12 17 18 11
X 6 8 6
5 5 7 3
168 196 200 164
6 6
7 44 51
2 2
395 395
14 13 1
461 467
14
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1986-87
APPEALS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1986 - JUNE 30, 1987
CRIMINAL-DEATH
CRIMINAL LIFE
OTHER CIVIL
JUVENILE 1%(2)
DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2%
(3)
OTHER CRIMINAL
ADMIN. AGENCY
PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1986 - JUNE 30, 1987
OTHER CIVIL
JUVENILE 1%(4)
CRIMINAL
ADMIN. AGENCY
DOMESTIC RELATIONS 3%
(24)
POST-CONVICTION
15
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
Supreme Court Caseload Types by Judicial District and Division
July 1, 1986-June 30, 1987
Judicial Judicial Total Death Life Other Civil Other Cases
Division District Cases Cases Cases Criminal Cases Cases Disposed
1 1 7 3 2 2 5
2 4 2 2 1
3A 6 1 2 1 2 2
3B 4 1 1 2 3
4 8 2 4 1 1 2
5 7 1 3 2 1 4
6 V 3 3 2 1 3
7 5 1 2 1 1 3
s 11 7 2 2 4
SUBTOTAL 61 8 27 13 11 2 27
II 9 8 1 4 2 1 5
10 63 3 7 6 26 21 32
ll 3 1 2 1
12 20 1 13 4 2 9
13 5 2 1 1 1 2
14 17 I 6 3 3 4 7
15A 8 1 3 2 1 1 4
15B 11 8 1 2 5
16 18 8 6 3 1 8
SUBTOTAL 153 17 48 23 39 26 73
III 17A 7 2 2 2 1 5
17B 6 1 1 2 2 3
18 21 1 9 2 8 1 II
19A 8 1 6 1 6
19B 2 1 1 2
20 10 1 3 1 5 6
21 16 1 X 7 9
22 15 4 7 1 3 3
23 n 1 5 1 4 7
SUBTOTAL 96 13 42 7 32 2 52
IV 24 3 2 1 2
25 7 1 5 1 5
26 15 4 2 8 1 11
27A 12 1 6 3 2 7
27B 4 3 1 2
28 14 1 7 1 4 1 7
2') 16 3 II 1 1 9
30 10 4 3 3 5
SUBTOTAL 81 6 42 11 20 2 48
TOTALS 391 44 159 54 102 32 200
NOTE: Above includes life and death sentence cases awaiting Record on Appeal and not yet formally docketed.
16
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage in Supreme Court
July 1, 1986-June 30, 1987
Cases Argued
Civil
Criminal
Total cases argued
76
110
186
Submissions Without Argument
By motion of the parties (Appellate Rule 30 (d))
By order of the Court (Appellate Rule 30 (f))
Total submissions without argument
Total Cases Reaching Decision Stage
I
I
2
188
Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings by the Supreme Court
July 1, 1986-June 30, 1987
Petitions for Review
Civil Domestic
Juvenile
Other Civil
Criminal
Postconviction Remedy
Administrative Agency Decision
Total Petitions for Review
Dismissed/ Total
Granted* Denied Withdrawn Disposed
3 19 22
1 3 1 5
38 221 10 269
49 219 9 277
22 11 33
8 20 1 29
99 504 32 635
Other Proceedings
Rule 16(b) — Additional Issues
Extraordinary Writs
Advisory Opinion
Rule Amendments
Motions
Total Other Proceedings
*"GRANTED" includes orders allowing relief without accepting the case as a full appeal
3 3 6
13 M 4 51
2
395
467
17
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Signed Opinions
Reversed Total
Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed
Civil domestic 3 3
Juvenile 1 1 2
Other civil 15 4 5 15 39
Criminal (death sentence) 2 1 1 3 7
Criminal (life sentence) 52 2 14 6 74
Other criminal 8 2 4 10 24
Postconviction remedy
Administrative agency decision 5 3 3 11
Totals 82 16 47 160
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Decision
Reversed Total
Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed
Civil domestic 1 1
Juvenile 1 1
Other civil 18 1 19
Criminal (death sentence)
Criminal (life sentence)
Other criminal 8 1 1 10
Postconviction remedy
Administrative agency decision 3 1 4
Totals 30 35
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals by Dismissal or Withdrawal
Case Types
Dismissed or
Withdrawn
Civil domestic
Juvenile
Other civil
Criminal (death sentence)
Criminal (life sentence)
Other criminal
Post-conviction remedy
Administrative agency decision
Totals
IX
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1986-87
MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF APPEALS IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1986-JUNE 30, 1987
OPINIONS
DISMISSED/WITHDRAWN 3%
(5)
PER CURIAM DECISIONS
TYPE OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1986-JUNE 30, 1987
GRANTED
DENIED
DISMISSED/ WITHDRAWN
SX
—
_
B Eft s 01
't-i y
c RI ~ 01
a.
u
c .- *>
T3
4)
3
- ex u
81
01
X
41 2 J? "a
a. q <
c
i
Zc-
PS
o
u
C
3
tu
<
C
y
3—
s.
s
„,
7Z
<*^
B JS
L. 01 *-
£ b"
3 7!
.»-. sx
-a L. E
8) •*! c
01 L.
0j
<—
U
< IX
c
Z -3
c =
- 0*
< —-—
-< =
z u
< a
U E
OS -a-s.
— Oi s«— ^*
'3 — 01 —
^ < o
ex
a =
ex'— "K
i. Q.QQ "O
< o
,-k 0)
ex u
C B
•= «
.S "g .2 -=
R U 3 o
i £
£ 2
<*
RI u
« >
at
;> O)
U
U
o o —
;
sC
tT SO
OO —
I
o o
o o
ro m
CM
-H O
rn so
sC oin
o
O—N 3O
u
uE
T u
so
SO 3
t/5
o
oo
so
nj
<L>
O-D.
cd
ou
© i-
»m X)
-t o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
<N m o> <* O o o s
co
'C
E
rj q — q o q ,r
i
rn iri ir-i sd cs a^
«~j m <N in «m 1—
O
4)
sO n x^ CO o e -a
o
oc
E
q <r> sG q o q i/j
'S: m en ri T' o\ ir. E» t o ITj rt oc
E
d
c
-t ON , 0> —
o i—
i
sO — 1 1 CO
r-- o
o —
sG o
90
sO O
sO
x:
o
'-E
c
-
=
3
o> fi
a. g
>-. o H -a
?3
J
sc
B
S
u o
>1
C
cj u
-a
>.
uc
<D
60
r3
B
-a
n. ca a u
Oj (L»
.S3 ed u
T3 _
O i_ U OJ
<u c
CJJ _
c S • H O
TO (/)
u-i & '2
o o
"5
D. a m O
< 3 oi
"5 to .a
w tft -ti
H < S * p
20
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Appeals Docketed and Disposed of During the Years, 1980-81—1986-87
400
Appeals Docketed
Appeals Disposed of
300
NUM
B
E
R
O
F
C
A
S
E
S
200
100
192
200
1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87
21
SOD
hi Hi
N
IM
B
h
R
O
F
C
\
s
E
S
400
200
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years, 1980-81—1986-87
Petitions Docketed
Petitions Allowed
1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87
22
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
Supreme Court Processing Time for Disposed Cases
(Total time in days from docketing to decision)
July 1, 1986-June 30, 1987
Civil domestic
Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals
Juvenile
Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals
Other civil
Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment
Other criminal
Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals
Petitions for review granted that became postconviction remedy cases
Administrative agency decision
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative
agency decision
Total appeals
Number (Days) (Days)
of Cases Median Mean
2 — 232.0
2 — 198.5
3 182 184.7
30 217 245.5
29 225 235.6
7 606 663.0
74 290 315.5
20 200 205.7
18 182 209.8
8 190 270.8
7 262 278.3
200 250 278.3
23
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA*
Chief Judge
R.A. HEDRICK
GERALD ARNOLD
HUGH A. WELLS
CHARLES L. BECTON
CLIFTON E. JOHNSON
EUGENE H. PHILLIPS
SIDNEYS. EAGLES, JR.
Judges
JOHN C. MARTIN
SARAH PARKER
JACK COZORT
ROBERT F. ORR
K. EDWARD GREENE
HUGH B. CAMPBELL
FRANK M. PARKER
EDWARD B. CLARK
Retired Judges
ROBERT M. MARTIN
CECIL J. HILL
E. MAURICE BRASWELL
Clerk
FRANCIS E. DAIL
*Asof 30 June 1987
24
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
The Court of Appeals
The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's
intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the
appeals originating from the State's trial courts. The
Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other
locations in the State as authorized by the Supreme
Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regular
or frequent. Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected by
popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for the
Court is designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court and serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the
Chief Justice.
Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the
Chief Judge responsible for assigning members of the
Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each
judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal number
of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge presides
over the panel of which he or she is a member and desig-nates
a presiding judge for the other panels.
One member of the Court of Appeals, designated by the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serves as chairman of
the Judicial Standards Commission.
In the event of a recommendation from the Judicial
Standards Commission to censure or remove from office
a justice of the Supreme Court, the (non-binding) recom-mendation
would be considered by the Chief Judge and
the six judges next senior in service on the Court of
Appeals (excluding the judge who serves as the Commis-sion's
chairman). Such seven-member panel would have
sole jurisdiction to act upon the Commission's recom-mendation.
Expenses of the Court, 1986-87
Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during the
1986-87 fiscal year totalled $2,947,010, an increase of
6.7% over 1985-86 expenditures of $2,763,224. Expendi-tures
for the Court of Appeals during 1986-87 amounted
to 2.0% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of
the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. This
percentage share of the total is the same as the Court of
Appeals percentage share of the Judicial Department
total in the 1985-86 fiscal year.
Jurisdiction
The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals con-sists
of cases appealed from the trial courts. The Court
also hears appeals directly from the Industrial Commis-sion;
certain final orders or decisions of the North Caro-lina
State Bar; and the Commissioner of Insurance; the
State Board of Contract Appeals; and appeals from cer-tain
final orders or decisions of the Property Tax Com-mission.
(Appeals from the decisions of other administra-tive
agencies lie first within the jurisdiction of the superior
courts.)
Case Data, 1986-87
A total of 1,288 appealed cases were filed before the
Court of Appeals during the period July 1, 1986 -
June 30, 1987. A total of 1,352 cases were disposed of
during the same period. During 1986-87, a total of 458
petitions and 1 ,480 motions were filed before the Court of
Appeals.
Further detail on the workload of the Court of Appeals
is shown in the tables and graphs on the following pages.
25
FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 1986-June 30, 1987
Cases on Appeal
Civil cases appealed from district courts
Civil cases appealed from superior courts
Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies
Criminal cases appealed from superior courts
Total
Filings Dispositions
261
498
77
452
1,288 1,352
Petitions
Allowed
Denied
Remanded
Total 458
91
367
458
Motions
Allowed
Denied
Remanded
Total 1,480
987
493
1,480
Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions and Motions 3,226 3,316
26
Totals
INVENTORY OF CASES APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 1986-June 30, 1987
Judicial
Cases Filed
Other
Total
Cases
Total
Judicial Appeals from Appeals from Superior Court Cases
Division District District Courts Civil Criminal Appeals Filed Disposed
1 i 3 7 1 1 21 26
2 4 4 8 16 23
3 6 20 28 54 57
4 6 14 24 44 33
5 6 1 1 19 36 30
6 3 10 13 19
7 3 11 10 24 25
8 6 12 8 26 28
II 9 5 4 9 18 15
10 18 77 19 77 191 191
11 6 14 8 28 25
12 13 8 25 46 43
13 5 9 11 25 21
14 16 18 8 42 54
15A/B* 13 23 IS 54 53
16 3 7 16 26 32
III 17A/B* 4 6 13 23 39
18 11 40 21 72 7S
19A/B* 10 11 17 38 49
20 II 19 11 31 47
21 IS 31 18 67 70
22 9 15 13 37 34
23 10 6 6 22 26
IV 24 6 7 8 21 18
25 14 13 20 47 42
26 22 38 47 107 118
27A/B* 5 19 20 44 49
28 11 23 7 41 42
29 10 13 11 34 31
30 7 15 s 30 23
261 498 452 77 1,288 1,352
*Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 17A and 17B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown.
Separate figures for these districts were not available.
27
MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 1986-June 30, 1987
Cases Disposed by Written Opinion
Cases Affirmed Total Cases
Judicial Judi cial Cases Cases in Part, Reversed by Written Other Cases Total Cases
Division District Affirmed Reversed in Part Opinion Disposed Disposed
1 1 17 6 1 24 2 26
: 19 2 4X 2 23
3 40 8 6 54 3 57
4 29 4 33 33
5 32 7 39 2 41
6 13 3 1 17 2 19
7 17 2 1 20 5 25
s 22 4 1 27 1 28
11 9 10 2 12 3 15
Mi 103 53 12 168 23 191
II 17 5 2 24 1 25
12 28 9 4 41 2 43
13 19 1 20 1 21
14 31 9 7 47 7 54
15A, B* 32 1 1 4 47 6 53
16 22 6 2 30 2 32
III 17 A/ B* 24 12 2 38 1 39
18 51 IX 4 73 5 78
19A/B* 37 5 2 44 5 49
20 36 6 2 44 3 47
21 43 12 X 63 7 70
22 24 6 2 32 2 34
23 IX 5 1 24 2 26
[\ 24 X 8 16 2 18
25 27 x 35 7 42
26 87 13 5 105 13 118
27A, B* 2X 14 3 45 4 49
28 29 9 4 42 42
29 17 9 1 23 2 25
30 8 10 2 20 3 23
Totals 888 267 79 1,234 118 1,352
Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 17A and 17B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown.
Separate figures for these districts were not available.
28
_ 4i
o a
H .22
Q
CifNCsimtNOsr^Tf 00 r-~ -rt IT) ro O Tf
^- rn vD in CO iai (N
OO ^ vO ^ O * (N
eg in m in so m •rf
00
c,
Os
C/3
-J
<W
a,
On
oH
a:
ouwXHw
PEi o
»
Zo
Hw
On
Qz
zoHO
u.
O
©
z
>
z
r-
©
a»
C3
1-5
s©
00
ON
^4
"3
oooooooo oooooooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
"2
o ss H to
"^ I/)
5 5
3 §
.Si
'3
^5
iri-<0\OnMV10\
0(NfOiTiiO-H-H(N
OOOOOOOO
oot^i^'tmvD^ooN oo-rt—< — (N-rfin oo oo os r^ oo <n o t— o «—( — (N <n ^ (N —i <n _ _« so
ci
(N\ON-«O ln^(N nnhH (N m O O C) tJ- 00 <N O <N »*
OOOOOOOO OOOOOOO ooooooo ©
(NONO^OiTiTtin 0O 't VO - "jTfOvO
r~ —h ci —< — m m CI OO d O <—i <N Ci (N in cj —
O—iO—-m^iri-Hin < tJ- <N c> —< c> (N
•Hf<iooin\0(NinTf
«in(Ninooo\*0«
c\)oci<Noomo
o—orOsir^voci-^-iooo CN — Tf Tj- <N
ci
O—ciOsmci—i<N — >n — (N —i —
<Nr- — ci — r-voc-i
csi in c> m so c> so
<N r-~ fN CN ci CN —
i
os —h o r~ >n * os
oo r-~ >* >n o o '^r
rj- o so m oo in cn
——< r-- oo cn Tt r- CN CN —' CN —
c, O so ci Os m Os —> ci ^- in o —
<
oo ft ci tT O Os rsi
cn in ci in so c> -^
oo —i ci in o cn cn
O ci rn Os O t*» O
cn Tt o ci in cn o
C)
Os T
t-
00
Os
oo
Ci
Os
oe
IT;
©
oo T
—'(NciTfinsOt^OO
#
OQ
O •—i CN O "sT m so
CQ CQ
r- oo os o —< <N c> — -h — (N (N (S| (N
*
CQ
Tt in so r- oo os O
(N (N (N M (N (N f-i
t/3
-J
<
HOH
3
u
c
c
CD
-a
c
ITS
<
CN
Q
03
OS
T>
C
cd
<
03
^3
a
Q
c-
Q
3
o
T3
aj D r
-C
£> ;t)
s
U
"c5
>
Kl
29
FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FISCAL YEARS 1981 THROUGH 1986-87
3000
2500
\
IM
B
E
R
()
r
C
\
s
K
S
2000
1500
1000
500
L
H Filings
Dispositions
1994
2186
1926 1927
1810
1981 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87
Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed cases and petitions (not motions) in the Court of Appeals.
Dispositions exceeded filings for the past four years.
30
1/3 c
1/3
s >
w
H
CO o
!* 03
CO 1/3 +* H
as
P 1/3
o Q
u __
si H *o Zw 33
CO l-S w 05
"o
05 H ux:
*->
k<
oZ
31
JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT*
(As of June 30, 1987)
District
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
FIRST DIVISION
J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City
Thomas S. Watts. Elizabeth City
William C. Griffin. Jr., Williamston
David E. Reid, Jr.. Greenville
Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City
Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville
James R. Strickland, Jacksonville
Bradford Tillery, Wilmington
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington
Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids
Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro
Charles B. Winberry, Rocky Mount
James D. Llewellyn, Kinston
Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro
SECOND DIVISION
Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg
Henry W. Hight, Jr., Henderson
Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh
Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh
Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh
Donald W. Stephens, Raleigh
1 1 Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn
12 Darius B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville
Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville
Edwin L. Johnson, Fayetteville
13 Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown
14 Thomas H. Lee, Durham
Anthony M. Brannon, Durham
James M. Read, Durham
15A Jasper B. Allen, Jr., Burlington
15B F. Gordon Battle, Hillsboro
16 B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg
THIRD DIVISION
District
17A Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., Wentworth
17B James M. Long, Pilot Mountain
18 W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro
Edward K. Washington, High Point
Thomas W. Ross, Greensboro
Joseph John, Greensboro
19A Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer
James C. Davis, Concord
19B Russell G. Walker, Jr., Asheboro
20 F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro
William H. Helms, Wingate
21 William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem
Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem
William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem
22 Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville
C. Preston Cornelius, Morresville
23 Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro
FOURTH DIVISION
24 Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone
25 Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory
Claude S. Sitton, Morganton
26 Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte
Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte
Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte
W. Terry Sherrill, Charlotte
27A Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia
27B John M. Gardner, Shelby
28 Robert D. Lewis, Asheville
C. Walter Allen, Asheville
29 Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton
30 James U. Downs, Franklin
Janet M. Hyatt, Waynesville
*In districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed first.
32
SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT
James A. Beaty, Jr., Winston-Salem
John B. Lewis, Jr., Farmville
Richard D. Boner, Charlotte
Fred J. Williams, Durham
Donald L. Smith, Raleigh
Marvin K. Gray, Charlotte
Lamar Gudger, Asheville
I. Beverly Lake, Jr., Raleigh
EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT
Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton
Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton
James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh
The Conference of Superior Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1987)
Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh, President
James M. Long, Pilot Mountain, President- Elect
Thomas H. Lee, Durham, Vice President
Edwin L. Johnson, Fayetteville, Secretary-Treasurer
Charles Lamm, Boone, David Reid, Greenville
Additional Executive Committee Members
33
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
The Superior Courts
North Carolina's superior courts are the general juris-diction
trial courts for the state. In 1986-87, there were 64
"resident"superior court judges elected to office in the 34
judicial districts for eight-year terms by Statewide ballot.
In addition, eight "special" superior court judges are
appointed by the Governor for four-year terms.
Jurisdiction
The superior court has original jurisdiction in all felony
cases and in those misdemeanor cases which originate by
grand jury indictment. (Most misdemeanors are tried first
in the district court, from which conviction may be
appealed to the superior court for trial de novo by a jury.
No trial by jury is available for criminal cases in district
court.) The superior court is the proper court for the trial
of civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds
S 10,000, and it has jurisdiction over appeals from admin-istrative
agencies except the Industrial Commission, cer-tain
rulings of the Commissioner of Insurance, the Board
of Bar Examiners of the North Carolina State Bar, the
Board of State Contract Appeals, and the Property Tax
Commission. Appeals from these agencies lie directly to
the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Regardless of the
amount in controversy, the original civil jurisdiction of
the superior court does not include domestic relations
cases, which are heard in the district courts, or probate
and estates matters and certain special proceedings heard
first by the clerk of superior court. Rulings of the clerk are
within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court.
Administration
The 1 00 counties of North Carolina were grouped into
34 judicial districts during 1986-87. Each district has at
least one resident superior court judge who has certain
administrative responsibilities for his home district, such
as providing for civil case calendaring procedures. (Crimi-nal
case calendars are prepared by the district attorneys.)
In districts with more than one resident superior court
judge, the judge senior in service on the superior court
bench exercises these supervisory powers.
The judicial districts are grouped into four divisions for
the rotation of superior court judges, as shown on the
map on Page 3 1 . Within the division, a resident superior
court judge is required to rotate among the judicial dis-tricts,
holding court for at least six months in each, then
moving on to his next assignment. A special superior
court judge may be assigned to hold court in any of the
100 counties. Assignments of all superior court judges are
made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under
the Constitution of North Carolina, at least two sessions
(a week each) of superior court are held annually in each
of the 100 counties. The vast majority of counties have
more than the constitutional minimum of two weeks of
superior court annually. Many larger counties have
superior court in session about every week in the year.
Expenditures
A total of $14,924,895 was expended on the operations
of the superior courts during the 1986-87 fiscal year. This
included the salaries and travel expenses for the 72 super-ior
court judges, and salaries and expenses for court
reporters and secretarial staff for superior court judges.
The 1986-87 expenditures for the superior courts amount-ed
to 10.1% of total General Fund expenditures for the
operations of the entire Judicial Department during the
1986-87 fiscal year.
Caseload
Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 98, 886
cases were filed in the superior courts during 1986-87, an
increase of 7,550 cases (8.3%) from the total of 91,336
cases that were filed in 1985-86. There were increases in
filings in all case categories: civil cases, felonies, and
misdemeanor appeals.
Superior court case dispositions increased from 88,089
in 1985-86 to 96,308 in 1986-87. There were disposition
increases in all case categories.
More detailed information on the flow of cases through
the superior courts is included in Part IV of this Report.
34
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1987)
District
1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City
John R. Parker, Manteo
2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington
Samuel G. Grimes, Washington
James W. Hardison, Wiliamston
3 E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville
J. Randal Hunter, New Bern
Willie L. Lumpkin, III, Morehead City
James E. Martin, Bethel
James E. Ragan, Oriental
H. Horton Rountree, Greenville
4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill
William M. Cameron, Jr., Jacksonville
Wayne G. Kimble, Jr., Jacksonville
James N. Martin, Clinton
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville
5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington
Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington
Charles E. Rice, III, Wilmington
Elton Glenn Tucker, Wilmington
6 Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck
Robert E. Williford, Lewiston
7 George Britt, Tarboro
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson
Quentin T. Sumner, Rocky Mount
Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson
8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston
Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro
Joseph E. Setzer, Jr., Goldsboro
9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford
Ben U. Allen, Jr., Henderson
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton
Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford
10 George F. Bason, Raleigh
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh
William A. Creech, Raleigh
George R. Greene, Raleigh
Joyce A. Hamilton, Raleigh
Jerry W. Leonard, Raleigh
Fred M. Morelock, Raleigh
Louis W. Payne, Jr., Raleigh
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh
District
1
1
Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield
William Christian, Sanford
Edward H. McCormick, Lillington
Owen H. Willis, Jr., Dunn
12 Sol. G. Cherry, Fayetteville
John S. Hair, Jr., Fayetteville
Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville
Anna E. Keever, Fayetteville
Warren L. Pate, Raeford
Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Fayetteville
13 William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville
Dewey J. Hooks, Jr., Whiteville
Jerry A. Jolly, Tabor City
David G. Wall, Elizabethtown
14 David Q. LaBarre, Durham
Richard Chaney, Durham
Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., Durham
Carolyn D. Johnson, Durham
Kenneth C. Titus, Durham
15A W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham
Spencer B. Ennis, Burlington
James K. Washburn, Burlington
15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill
Lowry M. Betts, Pittsboro
Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill
16 John S. Gardner, Lumberton
Adelaide G. Behan, Lumberton
Charles G. McLean, Lumberton
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton
17A Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville
Robert R. Blackwell, Reidsville
Philip W. Allen, Yanceyville
17B Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy
Clarence W. Carter, King
18 Paul T. Williams, Greensboro
Sherry F. Alloway, Greensboro
Robert E. Bencini, Jr., High Point
William L. Daisy, Greensboro
Edmund Lowe, High Point
Lawrence C. McSwain, Greensboro
J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro
William A. Vaden, Greensboro
19A Frank M. Montgomery, Salibury
Robert M. Davis, Salisbury
Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord
Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis
kThe Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first.
35
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1987)
District
19B Richard M. Toomes. Asheboro
William M. Neely, Asheboro
20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro
Michael E. Beale, Southern Pines
Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle
Kenneth W. Honneycutt, Monroe
Tanya T. Wallace, Carthage
21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem
Lorretta C. Biggs, Clemmons
James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem
Roland H. Hayes, Winston-Salem
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem
William B. Reingold, Winston-Salem
22 Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville
George T. Fuller, Lexington
Kimberly T.Harbinson, Taylorsville
Robert W. Johnson, Statesville
23 Samuel L. Osborne, Wilkesboro
Edgar B. Gregory, Wilkesboro
Michael E. Helms, Wilkesboro
24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland
Charles P. Ginn, Boone
R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk
25 L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory
Ronald E. Bogle, Hickory
Stewart L. Cloer, Hickory
Jonathan L. Jones, Hickory
Timothy S. Kincaid, Newton
District
26 James E. Lanning, Charlotte
Marilyn R. Bissell, Charlotte
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte
Richard A. Elkins, Charlotte
Shirley L. Fulton, Charlotte
Resa L. Harris, Charlotte
Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte
William G. Jones, Charlotte
Theodore P. Matus, II, Charlotte
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte
27A Lawrence B. Langson, Gastonia
Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia
Harley B. Gaston, Jr., Belmont
Timothy L. Patti, Gastonia
Catherine C. Stevens, Gastonia
27B George W. Hamrick, Shelby
James T. Bowen, Lincolnton
John K. Fonvielle, Shelby
28 Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden
Gary S. Cash, Fletcher
Robert L. Harrell, Asheville
Peter L. Roda, Asheville
29 Robert T. Gash, Brevard
Loto J. Greenlee, Marion
Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville
Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville
30 John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy
Steven J. Bryant, Bryson City
Danny E. Davis, Waynesville
"The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first.
The Association of District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1987)
Earl J. Fowler, Arden, President
Sol G. Cherry, Fayetteville, Vice President
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury, Secretary-Treasurer
George M. Britt, Tarboro
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville
W.S. Harris, Graham
L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory
Additional Executive Committee Members
36
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
The District Courts
North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with
original jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of the
cases handled by the State's court system. There were 151
district court judges serving in 34 judicial districts during
1986-87. These judges are elected to four-year terms by
the voters of their respective districts.
A total of 637 magistrate positions were authorized as
of June 30, 1987. Of this number, about 100 positions
were specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed by
the senior resident superior court judge from nominations
submitted by the clerk of superior court of their county,
and they are supervised by the chief district court judge of
their district.
Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtually
all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in most
felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary com-mitments
and recommitments to mental hospitals, and
domestic relations cases. Effective September 1, 1986, the
General Assembly decriminalized many minor traffic
offenses. Such offenses, previously charged as misdemea-nors,
are now "infractions," defined as non-criminal vio-lations
of law not punishable by imprisonment. The dis-trict
court division has original jurisdiction for all infrac-tion
cases. The district courts have concurrent jurisdiction
with the superior courts in general civil cases, but the
district courts are the proper courts for the trial of civil
cases where the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less.
Upon the plaintiffs request, a civil case in which the
amount in controversy is $1,500 or less, may be desig-nated
a "small claims" case and assigned by the chief
district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magis-trates
are empowered to try worthless check criminal
cases when the value of the check does not exceed $500. In
addition, they may accept written appearances, waivers of
trial, and pleas of guilty in such worthless check cases
when the amount of the check is $500 or less, the offender
has made restitution, and the offender has fewer than four
previous worthless check convictions. Magistrates may
accept waviers of appearance and pleas of guilty in mis-demeanor
or infraction cases involving traffic, alcohol,
boating, hunting and fishing violation cases, for which a
uniform schedule of fines has been adopted by the Con-ference
of Chief District Judges. Magistrates also conduct
initial hearings to fix conditions of release for arrested
defendants, and they are empowered to issue arrest and
search warrants.
Administration
A chief district judge is appointed for each judicial
district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from
among the elected judges in the respective districts. Sub-ject
to the Chief Justice's general supervision, each chief
judge exercises administrative supervision and authority
over the operation of the district courts and magistrates in
his district. Each chiefjudge is responsible for: scheduling
sessions of district court and assigningjudges; supervising
the calendaring of noncriminal cases; assigning matters to
magistrates; making arrangements for court reporting
and jury trials in civil cases; and supervising the discharge
of clerical functions in the district courts.
The chief district court judges meet in conference at
least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual con-ference
adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses and
fines for their violation for use by magistrates and clerks
of court in accepting defendants' waivers of appearance
and guilty pleas.
The Conference of Chief District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1987)
George M. Britt, Tarboro, President
Robert H. Lacey, Newland, Vice President
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury, Secretary-Treasurer
Expenditures
Total expenditures for the operation of the district
courts in 1986-87 amounted to $26,908,723. This is an
increase of 11.7% over 1985-86 expenditures of
$24,098,806. Included in this total are the personnel costs
of court reporters and secretaries as well as the personnel
costs of the 151 district court judges and approximately
637 magistrates. The 1986-87 total is 18.1% of the General
Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial
Department, about the same percentage share of total
Judicial Department expenditures that the district courts
took for the 1985-86 fiscal year.
Caseload
During 1986-87 the statewide total number of district
court filings (civil and criminal) increased 1 86,664 (11.1%)
over the total number reported for 1 985-86. Not including
juvenile proceedings and mental hospital commitment
hearings, the filing total in 1986-87 was 1,868,965. Most
of this increase is attributable to increases in criminal
motor vehicle and infraction filings. Considering criminal
motor vehicle and infraction cases together (since almost
all infraction cases were criminal motor vehicle cases in
prior years), there was an increase of 136,320 cases
(16.2%) above the number of criminal motor vehicle cases
filed in 1985-86. Filings of criminal non-motor vehicle
cases increased by 22,292 (5.0%), and filings of civil mag-istrate
cases increased by 21,41 1 (9.5%) above the numbers
of cases filed in these categories in 1985-86.
More detailed information on district court civil and
criminal caseloads and on juvenile case activity is con-tained
in Part IV of this Report.
37
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
(As of June 30, 1987)
District
3A
3B
4
5
6
"
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15A
15B
16
H. P. WILLIAMS. JR.. Elizabeth City
MITCHELL D. NORTON, Washington
THOMAS D. HAIGWOOD, Greenville
WILLIAM D. McFADYEN, New Bern
WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, Jacksonville
JERRY L. SPIVEY, Wilmington
DAVID H. BEARD, JR., Murfreesboro
HOWARD S. BONEY, JR., Tarboro
DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro
DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford
C. COLON WILLOUGHBY, JR., Raleigh
JOHN W. TWISDALE, Smithfield
EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville
MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Whiteville
RONALD L. STEPHENS, Durham
STEVE A. BALOG, Graham
CARL R. FOX, Carrboro
JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton
District
17A THURMAN B. HAMPTON, Wentworth
17B HAROLD D. BOWMAN, Dobson
18 HORACE M. KIMEL, JR., Greensboro
19A JAMES E. ROBERTS, Kannapolis
19B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro
20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe
21 W. WARREN SPARROW, Winston-Salem
22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington
23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro
24 JAMES THOMAS RUSHER, Marshall
25 ROBERT E. THOMAS, Newton
26 PETER S. GILCHRIST, Charlotte
27A CALVIN B. HAMRICK, Gastonia
27B WILLIAM C. YOUNG, Shelby
28 ROBERT W. FISHER, Asheville
29 ALAN C. LEONARD. Rutherfordton
30 ROY H. PATTON, JR., Waynesville
The Conference of District Attorneys
(Executive Committee as of June 30, 1987)
Edv.ard W. Grannis, Presdient
Michael F. Easley, President- Elect
Ronald L. Stephens, Vice President
Donald M. Jacobs, First Division Representative
David R. Waters, Second Division Representative
H.W. Zimmerman, Third Division Representative
James T. Rusher, Fourth Division Representative
The District Attorneys Association
(Officers as of June 30, 1987)
Edward W. Grannis, Fayetteville, President
Michael F. Easley, Bolivia, Vice President
Ronald L. Stephens, Durham, Vice President for
Legislative Affairs
Jean Elizabeth Powell, Fayetteville, Secretary-
Treasurer
W
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
The District Attorneys
The State is divided into 35 prosecutorial districts
which, with one exception, correspond to the 34 judicial
districts. By act of the 1981 Session of the General
Assembly, the 3rd Judicial District is divided into two
separate prosecutorial districts. Prosecutorial Districts
3A and 3B, effective October 1, 1981. Prosecutorial Dis-trict
3A consists of Pitt County, and Prosecutorial Dis-trict
3B is comprised of Craven, Carteret, and Pamlico
(G.S. 7A-60). A district attorney is elected by the voters in
each of the 35 districts for four-year terms.
Duties
The district attorney represents the State in all criminal
actions brought in the superior and district courts in his
district, and is responsible for ensuring that infraction
cases are prosecuted efficiently. In addition to his prosec-utorial
functions, the district attorney is responsible for
calendaring criminal cases for trial.
Resources
Each district attorney may employ on a full-time basis
the number of assistant district attorneys authorized by
statute for his district. As of June 30, 1987, a total of 222
assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 35
prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District 26
(Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff ( 19 assistants)
and the district attorney of eight judicial districts (15A,
15B, 17A, 17B, 19B, 23, 24, 27B) had the smallest staff
(three assistants).
Each district attorney is authorized to employ an
administrative assistant to aid in preparing cases for trial
and to expedite the criminal court docket. The district
attorney in 18 of the 35 districts is authorized to employ
an investigatorial assistant who aids in the investigation
of cases prior to trial. All district attorneys are authorized
to employ a victim and witness coordinator.
Expenditures
A total of $16,980,015 was expended in 1986-87 for the
35 offices of district attorney. In addition, a total of
$93,520 was expended for the District Attorney's Confer-ence
and its staff.
1986-1987 Caseload
A total of 83,478 criminal cases were filed in the super-ior
courts during 1986-87, consisting of 51,210 felony
cases and 32,268 misdemeanor appeals from the district
courts. The total number of filings in the superior courts
(felonies and misdemeanors) in the previous year was
76,179. The increase of 7,299 cases in 1986-87 is a 9.6%
increase over the 1985-86 total.
Total criminal cases disposed of by the superior courts
in 1986-87 amounted to 81,136. There were 48,890 felony
dispositions; the number of misdemeanor cases disposed
of was 32,246. Compared with 1985-86, total criminal
case dispositions increased by 7,136 over the 74,000 cases
disposed of in that fiscal year.
The median ages of 1986-87 criminal cases at disposi-tion
in the superior courts were 91 days for felony cases
and 71 days for misdemeanor appeals. In 1985-86, the
median age of felony cases at disposition was 86 days, and
the median age at disposition for misdemeanor appeals
was 67 days.
Dispositions by jury trial in the superior courts, for
felonies and misdemeanors, totalled 1,950 cases, or 4.0%
of total criminal case dispositions in the superior courts.
This was a decrease from jury dispositions of 3,306 (5.0%
of total dispositions) during the 1985-86 year. As is evi-dent,
a very small proportion of all criminal cases utilize
the great proportion of superior court time and resources
required to handle the criminal caseload.
By contrast, in 1986-87 a majority (25,293 or 51.8%) of
criminal case dispositions in superior courts were pro-cessed
on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a trial.
This was close to the 53.5% of guilty plea dispositions
reported for 1985-86.
"Dismissal by district attorney" accounted for a signifi-cant
percentage of all dispositions during 1986-87; a total
of 14,9 19 cases, or 30.6% of all dispositions. This propor-tion
is comparable to that recorded for prior years. Many
of the dismissals involved the situation of two or more
cases pending against the same defendant, resulting in a
plea bargain agreement where the defendant pleads guilty
to some charges in exchange for a dismissal of others.
There was a decrease in the number of "Speedy Trial
Act" dismissals in superior courts, from 54 in 1985-86 to
48 in 1986-87.
The total number of criminal cases disposed of in the
superior courts was 2,342 cases less than the total number
of cases filed in 1986-87. Consequently, the number of
pending criminal cases in superior court increased from
25,233 at the beginning of the fiscal year to a total at year's
end of 27,575, an increase of 9.3%.
The median age of pending felony cases in the superior
courts increased from 83 days on June 30, 1986 to 88 days
on June 30, 1987. Misdemeanor appeals also recorded an
increase, with the median age of pending misdemeanor
appeals increasing from 74 days on June 30, 1986 to 83
days on June 30, 1987.
Consideration of district court criminal caseloads is
affected by the existence of a new case category in the
district courts, "infractions." Effective September 1, 1986,
many minor traffic offenses were decriminalized and
thereafter charged as infractions, defined as non-criminal
violations of law not punishable by imprisonment.
Although non-criminal, district attorneys are responsible
for the prosecution of these cases.
Nearly all infraction cases were criminal motor vehicle
cases in prior years. Therefore, for purposes of comparing
39
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
current to prior year criminal caseloads, motor vehicle
filings and dispositions in prior years are compared to
filings and dispositions of motor vehicle cases plus infrac-tions
in 1986-87.
In the district courts, a total of 1,443,619 criminal cases
and infractions were filed during 1986-87. This total con-sisted
of 488.494 motor vehicle criminal cases, 486,994
infraction cases, and 468,131 non-motor vehicle criminal
cases. A comparison of total filings in 1986-87 with total
filings in 1 985-86 ( 1 .285,007) reveals an increase in district
court criminal (and infraction) filing activity of 158,612
cases or 12.3%. Filings of non-motor vehicle cases rose by
22.292 cases (5.0%), from a total of 445,839 cases in
1985-86 to 468.131 cases in 1986-87. In 1985-86, 839,168
motor vehicle cases were filed, compared to 975,488
motor vehicle and infraction cases filed during 1986-87,
an increase of 136,320 cases (16.2%).
Total dispositions of motor vehicle and infraction cases
in the district courts amounted to 925,997 cases during
1986-87 (527,344 motor vehicle dispositions and 398,653
infraction dispositions). As in prior years, a substantial
portion of such cases are disposed by waiver of appear-ance
and entry of pleas of guilty (or "responsibility" in
infraction cases) before a clerk or magistrate. During
1986-87, 497,631 (53.7%) of motor vehicle and infraction
cases were disposed by waiver. This substantial number of
cases did not, of course, require action by the district
attorneys' offices and should not be regarded as having
been a part of the district attorneys'caseload. The remain-ing
428,366 infraction and motor vehicle cases (327,930
infraction and 1 00,436 motor vehicle cases) were disposed
bv means other than waiver. This balance was 69,427
cases (or 19.3%) more than the 358,939 non-waiver motor
vehicle dispositions in 1985-86. (The clerks of court do
not report motor vehicle criminal cases or infractions by
case file number to the Administrative Office of the
Courts. Only summary total number of filings and dispo-sitions
are reported. Therefore, it is not possible by
computer-processing to obtain pending case data for the
motor vehicle criminal case or infraction case categories.)
With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case dispo-sitions,
a total of 456,699 such cases were disposed of in
district courts in 1986-87. As with superior court criminal
cases, the most frequent method of disposition was by
entry of guilty plea; the next most frequent was dismissal
by the district attorney. Some 160,024 cases, or 35.0% of
the dispositions were by guilty pleas. An additional
124,879 cases, or 27.3% of the total were disposed of by
prosecutor dismissal. The remaining cases were disposed
of by waiver (1 1.9%), trial (9.4%), as a felony probable
cause matter (9.3%), or by other means (7.1%).
During 1986-87, the median age at disposition of non-motor
vehicle criminal cases was 29 days, compared with
28 days at disposition for 1985-86.
Total non-motor vehicle criminal dispositions were
11,432 cases less than the total of such filings during
1986-87. The number of non-motor vehicle criminal cases
pending at year's end was 86,860, compared with a total of
75,428 at the beginning of the year, an increase of 1 1,432
( 15.2%) in the number of pending cases. The median age
for pending non-motor vehicle cases rose from 50 days on
June 30, 1986 to 54 days on June 30, 1987.
Additional information on the criminal caseloads in
superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this
Report.
40
CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT
(As of June 30, 1987)
COUNTY CLERK OF COURT COUNTY
Alamance Louise B. Wilson Johnston
Alexander Seth Chapman Jones
Alleghany Rebecca J. Gambill Lee
Anson R. Frank Hightower Lenoir
Ashe Jerry L. Roten Lincoln
Avery Robert F. Taylor Macon
Beaufort Thomas S. Payne, III Madison
Bertie John Tyler Martin
Bladen Hilda H. Coleman McDowell
Brunswick K. Gregory Bellamy Mecklenburg
Buncombe J. Ray Elingburg Mitchell
Burke Major A. Joines Montgomery
Cabarrus Estus B. White Moore
Caldwell Jeanette Turner Nash
Camden Catherine W. McCoy New Hanover
Carteret Darlene Leonard Northampton
Caswell Janet H. Cobb Onslow
Catawba Phyllis B. Hicks Orange
Chatham Janice Oldham Pamlico
Cherokee Rose Mary Crooke Pasquotank
Chowan Marjorie H. Hollowell Pender
Clay James H. McClure Perquimans
Cleveland Ruth S. Dedmon Person
Columbus Lacy R. Thompson Pitt
Craven Dorothy Pate Polk
Cumberland George T. Griffin Randolph
Currituck Sheila R. Doxey Richmond
Dare Betty Mann Robeson
Davidson Martha S. Nicholson Rockingham
Davie Delores C. Jordan Rowan
Duplin John A. Johnson Rutherford
Durham James Leo Carr Sampson
Edgecombe Curtis Weaver Scotland
Forsyth Frances P. Storey Stanly
Franklin Ralph S. Knott Stokes
Gaston Betty B. Jenkins Surry
Gates Terry L. Riddick Swain
Graham O.W. Hooper, Jr. Transylvania
Granville Mary Ruth C. Nelms Tyrrell
Greene Joyce L. Harrell Union
Guilford Barbara G. Washington Vance
Halifax Ellen C. Neathery Wake
Harnett Georgia Lee Brown Warren
Haywood William G. Henry Washington
Henderson Thomas H. Thompson Watauga
Hertford Richard T. Vann Wayne
Hoke Juanita Edmund Wilkes
Hyde Lenora R. Bright Wilson
Iredell Angelia T. Roberts Yadkin
Jackson Frank Watson, Jr. Yancey
CLERK OF COURT
Will R. Crocker
Ronald H. Metts
Lucille H. York
Claude C. Davis
Pamela C. Huskey
Lois S. Morris
James W. Cody
Phyllis G. Pearson
Ruth B. Williams
Robert M. Blackburn
Linda D. Woody
Charles M. Johnson
Rachel H. Comer
Rachel M. Joyner
Louise D. Rehder
R. Jennings White, Jr.
Everitte Barbee
Shirley L. James
Mary Jo Potter
Frances W. Thompson
Frances D. Basden
W.J. Ward
W. Thomas Humphries
Sandra Gaskins
Judy P. Arledge
Lynda B. Skeen
Catherine S. Wilson
Dixie I. Barrington
Frankie C. Williams
Francis Glover
Keith H. Melton
Charlie T. McCullen
C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr.
David R. Fisher
Pauline Kirkman
David J. Beal
Sara Robinson
Marian M. McMahon
Nathan T. Everett
Nola H. McCollum
Lucy Longmire
John M. Kennedy
Richard E. Hunter, Jr.
Timothy L. Spear
John T. Bingham
David B. Brantly
Wayne Roope
Nora H. Hargrove
Harold J. Long
F. Warren Hughes
41
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
The Clerks of Superior Court
A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for a four-year
term by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 coun-ties.
The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide special
proceedings and is. ex officio, judge of probate, in addi-tion
to performing record-keeping and administrative
functions for both the superior and district courts of his
county.
Jurisdiction
The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court
includes the probate of wills and administration of dece-dents'
estates. It also includes such "special proceedings"
as adoptions, condemnations of private property under
the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings to
establish boundaries, foreclosures, and certain proceed-ings
to administer the estates of minors and incompetent
adults. The right of appeal from the clerks' judgments in
such cases lies to the superior court.
The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue
search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and
other process necessary to execute the judgments entered
in the superior and district courts of his county. For
certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is autho-rized
to accept defendants' waiver of appearance and plea
of guilty and to impose a fine in accordance with a sche-dule
established by the Conference of Chief District
Court Judges.
Total expenditures for clerks' offices in 1986-87
amounted to 31.1% of the General Fund expenditures for
the operations of the entire Judicial Department.
1986-87 Caseload
During 1986-87, estate case filings totalled 43,285. This
was an increase over the 41,593 cases filed in 1985-86.
Estate case dispositions totalled 42,070 cases in 1986-87,
or 5.8% more than the previous year's total of 39,765.
A total of 39,286 special proceedings was filed before
the 100 clerks of superior court in 1986-87. This is an
increase of 4,005 cases ( 1 1 .4%) from the 35,28 1 filings in
the previous fiscal year. Special proceedings dispositions
totalled 32,309 cases, or 1.8% more than the previous
year's total of 31,735.
The clerks of superior court are also responsible for
handling the records of all case filings and dispositions in
the superior and district courts. The total number of
superior court case filings during the 1986-87 year was
98,886 and the total number of district court filings, not
including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital com-mitment
hearings, was 1,682,321.
More detailed information on the estates and special
proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this
Report.
Administration
The clerk of superior court performs administrative
duties for both the superior and district courts of his
county. Among these duties are the maintenance of court
records and indexes, the control and accounting of funds,
and the furnishing of information to the Administrative
Office of the Courts.
In most counties, the clerk continues to perform certain
functions related to preparation of civil case calendars,
and in many counties, the clerk's staff assists the district
attorney in preparing criminal case calendars as well.
Policy and oversight responsibility for civil case calendar-ing
is vested in the State's senior resident superior court
judges and chief district court judges. However, day-to-day
civil calendar preparation is the clerk's responsibility
in all districts except those served by trial court ad-ministrators.
Expenditures
A total of S46.066.578 was expended in 1986-87 for the
operation of the 100 clerk of superior court offices. In
addition to the salaries and other expenses of the clerks
and their staffs, this total includes expenditures for jurors'
fees, and witness expenses.
Association of Clerks of Superior Court
(Officers as of June 30, 1987)
John Johnson, Duplin County,
President
Frances W. Thompson, Pasquotank County
First Vice President
James L. Carr, Durham County
Second Vice President
Judy Arledge, Polk County
Secretary
Ray Elingburg, Buncombe County
Treasurer
42
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
Juvenile Services Division
The Juvenile Services Division of the Administrative
Office of the Courts provides intake, probation and after-care
services to juveniles who are before the District
Courts for delinquent matters, i.e., violations of the crimi-nal
code, including motor vehicle violations; and for
undisciplined matters, such as running away from home,
being truant, and being beyond the parents' disciplinary
control.
Intake is the screening of complaints alleging delin-quent
or undisciplined behavior by children, to determine
whether petitions should be filed. During the 1986-87 year
a total of 27,725 complaints were brought to the attention
of intake counselors. Of this number, 17,956(64.8%) were
approved for filing, and 9,769 (35.2%) were not approved
for filing.
Probation and aftercare refer to supervision of children
in their own communities. Probation is authorized by
judicial order. Aftercare service is provided for juveniles
after their release from a training school. (Protective
supervision is also a form of court-ordered supervision
within the community; and this service is combined with
probation and aftercare.)
In 1986-87 a total of 16,5 12 juveniles were supervised in
the probation and aftercare program.
Expenditures
The Juvenile Services Division is State-funded. The
expenditures for fiscal year 1986-87 totalled $10,513,864.
This was an increase of 8.3% over the 1985-86 expendi-tures.
The 1986-87 expenditures amounted to 7.2% of all
General Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire
Judicial Department, close to the same percentage share
of total Judicial Department expenditures for the Di-vision
as in the previous fiscal year.
Administration
The Administrator of the Juvenile Services Division is
appointed by the Director of the Administrative Office of
the Courts. A chief court counselor is appointed for each
judicial district by the Administrator of the Juvenile Ser-vices
Division, with the approval of the Chief District
Court Judge and the Administrative Officer of the
Courts. Subject to the Administrator's general supervi-sion,
each chief court counselor exercises administrative
supervision over the operation of the court counseling
services in the respective districts.
Juvenile Services Division Staff
(As of June 30, 1987)
Thomas A. Danek, Administrator
Nancy C. Patteson, Assistant Administrator
Edward F. Taylor, Assistant Administrator
John T. Wilson, Assistant Administrator
Rex B. Yates, Assistant Administrator
Jennie E. Cannon, Education Coordinator
43
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
Judicial
District Chief Court Counselors
1 Robert Hendrix
2 Joseph Paul
3 Eve C. Rogers
4 Ida Ray Miles
5 Phyllis Roebuck
6 John R. Brady
Pam Honeycutt
8 Lynn C. Sasser
9 Tommy Lewis
10 Larry C. Dix
1
1
Henry C. Cox
12 PhilT. Utley
13 Jimmy Godwin
14 Fred Elkins
15A Harry Derr
15B Harold Rogerson
Juvenile Services Division
(As of June 30, 1987)
Judicial
District Chief Court Counselors
16 Robert Hughes
17A and 17B Martha Lauten
18 J. Manley Dodson
19A and 19B James Queen
20 Jimmy Craig
21 James J. Weakland
22 Carl T. Duncan
23 Wayne C. Dixon
24 Lynn Hughes
25 Lee Cox
26 James Yancey
27A Charles Reeves
27B Gloria Newman
28 Louis Parrish
29 Kenneth Lanning
30 Betty G. Alley
THE COURT COUNSELORS ASSOCIATION
(Officers for 1986-87)
Executive Committee Members
Harold Rogerson, President
Carey Collins, President- Elect
Pat Wolfe, Seretary
Larry Dix, Treasurer
Rick McCollister, Parliamentarian
1984-87
Carl Duncan
Eve Rogers
Board Members
1985-88 1986-89
Jane Clare
Nancy Patteson
Bruce Stanback
Richard Alligood
Marion Brewer
Ann Loy
44
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
Public Defenders
During 1986-87, there were seven public defender offi-ces
in North Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 3,* 12,
15B, 18, 26, 27A, and 28. The public defender for each
district is appointed by the senior resident superior court
judge of that district from a list of not less than two and
not more than three names nominated by written ballot of
the attorneys resident in the district who are licensed to
practice law in North Carolina. Their terms are four
years. Each public defender is by statute provided a min-imum
of one full-time assistant public defender and addi-tional
full-time or part-time assistants as may be autho-rized
by the Administrative Office of the Courts.
1986-87 Caseload
The seven public defender offices disposed of cases
involving a total of 23,287 defendents during 1986-87.
This was an increase of 2,317 defendants, or 1 1.0%, over
the 20,970 defendants represented during 1985-86.
Additional information concerning the operation of
these offices is found in Part III of this Annual Report.
PUBLIC DEFENDERS
(As of June 30, 1987)
Entitlement of Indigents to Counsel
A person is determined to be indigent if he is found
"financially unable to secure legal representation." He is
entitled to State-paid legal representation in: any pro-ceeding
which may result in (or which seeks relief from)
confinement; a fine of $500 or more; or extradition to
another State; a proceeding alleging mental illness or
incapacity which may result in hospitalization, steriliza-tion,
or the loss of certain property rights; and juvenile
proceedings which may result in confinement, transfer to
superior court for a felony trial, or termination of paren-tal
rights.
Most of the cases of State-paid representation of indi-gents
in the districts with public defenders are handled by
the public defender's office. However, the court may in
certain circumstances—such as existence of a potential
conflict of interest—assign private counsel to represent an
indigent defendant. In the other 28 districts, the assigned
private counsel system was the only one used.
Expenditures
A total of $3,620,21 1 was expended for the operation of
the seven public defenders' offices during 1986-87. This
was an increase of $337,242 (10.3%) over the 1 985-86 total
of $3,282,969.
*The public defender serves only two counties of the four in Dis-trict
3: Pitt and Carteret.
District 3
Robert L. Shoffner, Greenville
District 12
Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville
District 15B
John Kirk Osborn, Chapel Hill
District 18
Wallace G. Harrelson, Greensboro
District 26
Isabel S. Day, Charlotte
District 27A
Rowell C. Cloninger, Jr., Gastonia
District 28
J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville
The Association of Public Defenders
(Officers as of June 30, 1987)
Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., President
Marc D. Towler, Vice President
45
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
The Office of the Appellate Defender
(Staff as of June 30, 1987)
Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender
Assistant Appellate Defenders
Louis D. Bilionis
David W. Dorey
Geoffrey C. Mangum
Gayle L. Moses
Daniel R. Pollitt
Leland Q. Towns
The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a
State-funded program on October 1, 1981. (Prior to that
date, appellate defender services were funded by a one-year
federal grant.) The 1985 General Assembly made
permanent The Appellate Defender Office by repealing
its expiration provision. In accord with the assignments
made by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the
Appellate Defender and his staff to provide criminal
defense appellate services to indigent persons who are
appealing their convictions to the N. C. Supreme Court,
the N. C. Court of Appeals, or to Federal courts.
The Appellate Defender is appointed by, and carries
out his duties under the general supervision of the Chief
Justice. The Chief Justice may, consistent with the
resources available to the Appellate Defender and to
insure quality criminal defense services, authorize certain
appeals to be assigned to a local public defender office or
to private assigned counsel instead of to the Appellate
Defender.
1986-87 Caseload
As of July 1, 1986, the Appellate Defender had 92 cases
pending in the North Carolina Supreme Court. During
the 1986-87 year, a total of 53 additional appeals to the
Supreme Court were assigned to the Appellate Defender's
Office, and during that year a total of 63 cases in the
Supreme Court were disposed of. This left 82 cases pend-ing
as of June 30, 1987. During the 1986-87 year, the
Appellate Defender and his staff filed a total of 47 briefs
and 48 petitions in the Supreme Court.
As of July 1, 1986, the Appellate Defender had 115
cases pending in the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
During the 1986-87 year, a total of 1 12 additional appeals
to the Court of Appeals were assigned to the Appellate
Defender's Office, and during that year, a total of 114
cases in the Court of Appeals were disposed of. This left
1 13 cases pending as of June 30, 1987. During the 1986-87
year, the Appellate Defender and his staff filed a total of
120 briefs and 17 petitions in the Court of Appeals.
46
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
The North Carolina Courts Commission
(Members as of June 30, 1987)
Appointed by the Governor
Jonathan L. Rhyne, Jr., Lincolnton, Chairman
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
H. Parks Helms, Charlotte
Garland N. Yates, Asheboro
District Attorney
Warren Owen, Charlotte
Harold J. Long, Yadkinville
Clerk of Court
Dennis J. Winner, Asheville
Member, N. C. State Senate
Appointed by President of the Senate
(Lieutenant Governor)
Anthony E. Rand, Fayetteville
Member, N.C. Senate
Fielding Clark, II, Hickory
Henson P. Barnes, Goldsboro
Member, N.C. Senate
Earl F. Parker, Apex
Magistrate
R.C. Soles, Jr., Tabor City
Member, N. C. Senate
Howard F. Twiggs, Raleigh
Ex-Officio (Non-Voting)
O. William Faison, Raleigh
N.C. Bar Association Representative
A.B. Coleman, Jr., Raleigh
N.C. State Bar Representative
Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Raleigh
Administrative Officer of the Courts
Appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Daniel T. Blue, Jr., Albemarle
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Robert C. Hunter, Marion
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Ralph S. Knott, Louisburg
Clerk of Court
Donald M. Dawkins, Rockingham
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Marvin D. Musselwhite, Jr., Raleigh
Dennis A. Wicker, Sanford
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Appointed by the Chief Justice of the
N.C. Supreme Court
Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Raleigh
Associate Justice, N.C. Supreme Court
Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte
Judge, N.C. Court of Appeals
Giles B. Clark, Elizabethtown
Superior Court Judge
Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory
Superior Court Judge
Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids
District Court Judge
Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton
District Court Judge
The North Carolina Courts Commission was reestab-lished
by the 1979 General Assembly "to make continuing
studies of the structure, organization, jurisdiction, proce-dures
and personnel of the Judicial Department and of
the General Court of Justice and to make recommenda-tions
to the General Assembly for such changes therein as
will facilitate the administration of justice". Initially, the
Commission was comprised of 15 voting members, with
five each appointed by the Governor, the President of the
Senate (Lieutenant Governor), and the Speaker of the
House. The Commission also had three ex officio mem-bers
as shown above.
The 1981 General Assembly amended the statutes per-taining
to the Courts Commission, to increase the number
of voting members from 15 to 23, with the Governor to
appoint seven voting members, the President of the
Senate to appoint eight voting members, and the Speaker
of the House to appoint eight voting members. The non-voting
ex officio members remained the same: a represen-tative
of the North Carolina Bar Association, a represen-tative
of the North Carolina State Bar, and the Adminis-trative
Officer of the Courts.
47
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
The North Carolina Courts Commission
The 1983 Session of the General Assembly further
amended G.S. 7A-506, to revise the voting membership of
the Commission. Effective July 1. 1983, the Commission
is to consist of 24 voting members, six to be appointed by
the Governor: six to be appointed by the Speaker of the
House: six to be appointed by the President of the Senate;
and six to be appointed by the Chief Justice of the North
Carolina Supreme Court. The Governor continues to
appoint the Chairman of the Commission, from among
its legislative members. The non-voting ex officio mem-bership
of three persons remains the same.
Of the six appointees of the Chief Justice, one is to be a
Justice of the Supreme Court, one is to be a Judge of the
Court of Appeals, two are to be judges of superior court,
and two are to be judges of district court.
Of the six appointees of the Governor, one is to be a
district attorney, one a practicing attorney, one a clerk of
superior court, and three are to be members or former
members of the General Assembly and at least one of
these shall not be an attorney.
Of the six appointees of the Speaker of the House, at
least three are to be practicing attorneys, and three are to
be members or formers members of the General Assem-bly,
and at least one of these three is not to be an attorney.
Of the six appointees of the President of the Senate, at
least three are to be practicing attorneys, three are to be
members or former members of the General Assembly,
and at least one is to be a magistrate.
During the 1986-87 year the Courts Commission had a
total of eight meetings, all of which were held in Raleigh.
The following Commission proposals were approved
by the 1987 Session of the General Assembly:
• Statutory amendment effective October 1, 1987,
increasing the jurisdiction of magistrates and clerks
in worthless check cases to those cases involving
checks up to $1,000 (Chapter 355, 1987 Session
Laws).
• Statutory amendment effective July 24, 1987, pro-viding
that life sentences rendered in capital cases are
still heard initially by the Supreme Court, but other
life imprisonment cases will now be heard on appeal
first by the Court of Appeals (Chapter 679, 1987
Session laws).
In addition, the Courts Commission recommended
that a special study commission be created to investigate
how other states select their judges to see if any improve-ment
can be borrowed from them and to determine the
views of the citizens of North Carolina about how their
judges should be selected. (Chapter 873 established the
Judicial Selection Study Commission to "study the
method of selecting judges in North Carolina and recom-mend
any changes needed to improve the system.")
The Commission also recommended that an agency
such as the Administrative Office of the Courts or the
Institute of Government prepare a grand jury handbook
to provide grand jury members and foremen with guide-lines
and legal instruction for performing this important
civic duty.
Finally, the Commission expressed in the form of a
motion that "the Commission expresses its concern to the
General Assembly about the level of compensation for
District Court Judges in view of the duties assigned to
them and their increased work loads." (The 1987 General
Assembly appropriated funds for a 10% pay raise for
district court judges.)
48
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1986-87
The Judicial Standards Commission
(Members as of June 30, 1987)
Appointed by the Chief Justice
Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Arnold,
Fuquay-Varina, Chairman
Superior Court Judge James M. Long,
Pilot Mountain
District Court Judge W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham
Elected by the Council of the N.C. State Bar
E. K. Powe, Durham, Vice Chairman
Rivers D. Johnson, Jr., Warsaw
Appointed by the Governor
Veatrice C. Davis, Fayetteville, Secretary
Pamela S. Gaither, Charlotte
Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary
THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION
July 1, 1986 — June 30, 1987
The Judicial Standards Commission was established
by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional
amendment approved by the voters at the general election
in November 1972.
Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Su-preme
Court may censure or remove any judge for willful
misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to per-form
his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice that brings the judicial
office into disrepute. In addition, upon recommendation
of the Commission, the Supreme Court may remove any
judge for mental or physical incapacity interfering with
the performance of his duties, which is, or is likely to
become, permanent.
Where a recommendation for censure or removal
involves ajustice of the Supreme Court, the recommenda-tion
and supporting record is filed with the Court of
Appeals which has and proceeds under the same author-ity
for censure or removal of a judge. Such a proceeding
would be heard by the Chief Judge of the Court of
Appeals and the six judges senior in service, excluding the
Court of Appeals judge who by law serves as the Chair-man
of the Judicial Standards Commission.
In addition to a recommendation of censure or remov-al,
the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary measure
known as a reprimand. The reprimand is a mechanism
administratively developed for dealing with inquiries
where the conduct does not warrant censure or removal,
but where some action is justified. Since the establishment
of the Judicial Standards Commission in 1973, repri-mands
have been issued in fourteen instances covering 20
inquiries.
During the July 1, 1986 -June 30, 1987 fiscal year, the
Judicial Standards Commission met on November 1,
1986, and March 21, 1987.
A complaint or other information against a judge,
whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the
Commission on its own motion, is designated as an
"Inquiry Concerning a Judge." Eighteen such inquiries
were pending as of July 1, 1986, and 77 inquiries were filed
during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a total
workload of 95 inquiries.
During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 65
inquiries, and 30 inquiries remained pending at the end of
the fiscal year.
The determinations of the Commission regarding the
65 inquiries disposed of during the fiscal year were as
follows:
(1) fifty-two inquiries were determined to involve evi-dentiary
rulings, length of sentences, or other mat-ters
not within the Commission's jurisdiction rather
than questions of judicial misconduct;
(2) two inquiries were determined to involve allega-tions
of conduct which did not rise to such a level as
would warrant investigation by the Commission;
(3) ten inquiries were determined to warrant no further
action following completion of preliminary investi-gations;
and
(4) one inquiry resulted in a recommendation of
censure.
Of the 30 inquiries pending at the end of the fiscal year:
(1) twenty-three inquiries were awaiting initial review
by the Commission; and
(2) seven inquiries were awaiting completion of a pre-liminary
investigation or were subject to other
action by the Commission.
49
PART III
COURT RESOURCES
• Financial
• Personnel
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
Under the State Constitution the operating expenses of
the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts)
"other than compensation to process servers and other
locally paid non-judicial officers" are required to be paid
from State funds. It is customary legislative practice for
the General Assembly to include appropriations for the
operating expenses of all three branches of State govern-ment
in a single budget bill, for a two-year period ending
on June 30 of the odd-numbered years. The budget for the
second year of the biennium is generally modified during
the even-year legislative session.
Building facilities for the appellate courts are provided
by State funds, but, by statute, the county governments
are required to provide from county funds for adequate
facilities for the trial courts within each of the 100
counties.
Appropriations from the State's General Fund for
operating expenses for all departments and agencies of
State government, including the Judicial Department,
totalled $5,162,655,711 for the 1986-87 fiscal year.
(Appropriations from the Highway Fund and appropria-tions
from the General Fund for capital improvements
and debt servicing are not included in this total.)
The appropriation from the General Fund for the
operating expenses of the Judicial Department for 1986-
87 was $146,394,689. As illustrated in the chart below,
this General Fund appropriation for the Judicial De-partment
comprised 2.8% of the General Fund appropri-ations
for the operating expenses of all State agencies and
departments.
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
APPROPRIATIONS FOR
OPERATING EXPENSES
$5,162,655,711
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
APPROPRIATION
$146,394,689
2.8%
53
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
Appropriation from the State's general fund for operat-ing
expenses oi the Judicial Department over the past
seven fiscal years are shown in the table below and in the
graph at the top of the following page. For comparative
purposes, appropriations from the general fund for oper-ating
expenses of all State agencies and departments
(including the Judicial Department) for the last seven
fiscal years are also shown in the table below and in the
second graph on the following page.
APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES
Judicial Department All State Agencies
Fiscal Year % Increase over % Increase over
Appropriation previous year Appropriation previous year
1980-1981 82,929,174 15.80 3,140,949,832 13.76
1981-1982 89,631,765 8.08 3,339,761,674 6.33
1982-1983 93,927,824 4.79 3,488,908,246 4.47
1983-1984 106,182,188 13.05 3,730,497,565 6.92
1984-1985 121,035,791 13.99 4,319,568,173 15.79
1985-1986 134,145,813 10.83 4,801,279,494 11.15
1986-1987 146,394,689 9.13 5,162,655.711 7.53
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INCREASE, 1980-1987 10.81% 9.42%
During the past decade, including the seven-year
period covered by the above table, inflation has been a
significant factor in the national economy.
The greatest percentage increase in Judicial Depart-ment
appropriations during the last six years was for the
1980-81 fiscal year. The increase for that year was due in
large measure to a 10% pay increase for Judicial Branch
personnel, with the same pay increase provided for per-sonnel
of all State government agencies. A 10% pay
increase was also provided for the 1984-85 fiscal year.
Fiscal year 1982-83 shows the smallest percentage
increase in Judicial Department appropriations during
the seven-year period. The decline in percentage increase
that year was consistent with a similar decline for all State
government agencies.
54
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses
Of the Judicial Department, 1980-81 — 1986-87
$150,000,000
140,000,000
130,000,000
120,000,000
110,000,000
100,000,000
90,000,000
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
689
1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1986-87
General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses
Of All State Agencies and Departments, 1980-81 — 1986-87
$6,000,000,000
5,000,000,000
4,750,000,000
4,500,000,000
4,250,000,000
4,000,000,000
3,750,000,000
3,500,000,000
3,250,000,000
3,000,000,000
2,750,000,000
2,500,000,000
2,250,000,000
2,000,000,000
1,750,000,000
1,500,000,000
1,250,000,000
1,000,000,000
750,000,000
500,000,000
250,000,000
1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87
55
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
Expenditures July 1, 1986 — June 30, 1987
General Fund expenditures for operating expenses of totalled $148,328,555, divided among the major budget
the Judicial Department during the 1986-87 fiscal year classifications as shown below.
%of
Amount Total
2,281,161 1.5
2,947,010 2.0
14,924,895 10.1
26,908,723 18.1
46,066,578 31.1
10,513,864 7.1
18,392,136 12.4
Supreme Court
Court o\ Appeals
Superior Courts
District Courts
Clerks of Superior Court
Juvenile Probation and Aftercare
Representation for Indigents
Assigned private counsel SI 2,258,375
Guardian ad litem for juveniles $183,411
Guardian ad litem—volunteer and contract program $1,117,720
Public defenders $3,620,21
1
Special counsel at mental hospitals $215,574
Support services (expert witness fees, professional examinations, transcripts) $526,739
Appellate Defender Services $470,106
District Attorney Offices 17,073,535 11.5
Office-District Attorney $16,980,015
District Attorneys' Conference $93,520
Administrative Office of the Courts 8,487,978 5.7
General Administration $3,740,108
Information Services $4,409,696
Warehouse & Printing $338,174
Judicial Standards Commission 69,625 .1
Pilot Programs 463,491 .3
Custody Mediation Pilot $75,849
Indigency Screening Pilot $302,269
Dispute Settlement Center $56,081
\rbitration Pilot Program $29,292
Special Projects 199,559 .1
Model Juvenile Court Project $15,076
Prosecution Management System $1 1,309
Victim Assistance, 21st District $23,378
Victim Assistance. 28th District $40,906
Victim Assistance. 13th District $29,942
Victim