North Carolina courts: annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts

              Id I: mo/j/
C s
^xxrtij (Earnlma (Eaurte
1990-91
|<W.
~
':— ^ .'-'\
~* -~ .""*'"-
N.C. DOCUMENTS
CLEARINGHOUSE
JVnnual ^Report
of tij£
AUG 23 1993
N.C. STATE LIBRARY
RALE!G<
The Cover: The Halifax County Courthouse in Halifax, North Carolina was
completed in 1987. Located on a tract of some one hundred acres and approached by a
long drive, the Flemish bond brick building presents an impressive view. The eclectic
design combines Neoclassical, French and Italian influences, with a symmetrical main
block dominated by a five-bay colonnade with Italianate arched openings. The rear of
the building features a large Palladian window and is connected to an adjoining Public
Safety building by a colonnaded walkway.
Halifax County was formed in 1758 from Edgecombe County and was named in honor
of George Montagu Dunk, Earl of Halifax. Halifax County was the home of the late
Chief Justice Joseph Branch, to whom this Annual Report is dedicated.
NORTH CAROLINA COURTS
1990-91
ANNUAL REPORT
of the
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
IN MEMORIAM
JOSEPH BRANCH
CHIEF JUSTICE
AUGUST 1, 1979 — AUGUST 31, 1986
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
AUGUST 29, 1966 — JULY 31, 1979
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1991nort
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-fifth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1,
1990 — June 30, 1991.
Fiscal year 1990-91 marks the seventh consecutive year with significant increases in filings and
dispositions in the Superior Courts. During 1 990-9 1 , as compared to 1 989-90, total case filings in Superior
Court increased by 5.6% and dispositions increased by 9.8%. In District Court, total case filings decreased
by 0.8% and total dispositions increased by 1 .4%. The decrease in total filings during 1990-9 1 , compared to
1989-90, represents the first decrease since fiscal 1981-82. In both Superior and 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,
L t- n »-i I - 1 1 *-t L. r /-i t-\ r-v~t r\ r\ I r Franklin Freeman, Jr.
Director
June 1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part I
The 1990-91 Judicial Year in Review
North Carolina Judicial Branch Fact Sheet 1
The 1990-91 Judicial Year in Review 2
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations in 1990-91
Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 9
The Present Court System 12
Organization and Operations
The Supreme Court 16
The Court of Appeals 27
Map of Judicial Divisions and Superior Court Districts 31
Map of District Court Districts 32
Map of Prosecutorial Districts 33
The Superior Courts 34
The District Courts 37
District Attorneys 42
Clerks of Superior Court 46
The Administrative Office of the Courts 49
Juvenile Services Division 51
Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services 53
Trial Court Administrators 55
Public Defenders 57
Appellate Defender 59
Court-Ordered Arbitration 60
Child Custody and Visitation Mediation 63
The North Carolina Courts Commission 65
The Judicial Standards Commission 67
Part III
Court Resources in 1990-91
Judicial Department Finances
Appropriations 71
Expenditures 74
Receipts 76
Distribution of Receipts 77
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 80
Judicial Department Personnel 88
Part IV
Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1990-91
Trial Courts Case Data 91
Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 95
District Court Division Caseflow Data 187
Tables, Charts and Graphs
Parti
The 1990-91 Judicial Year in Review
North Carolina Judicial Branch Fact Sheet 1
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations in 1990-91
Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the
Present Court System 12
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina
Trial Courts 15
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 16
Supreme Court, Caseload Inventory 18
Supreme Court, Appeals Filed 19
Supreme Court, Petitions Filed 19
Supreme Court, Caseload Types 20
Supreme Court, Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage 21
Supreme Court, Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 21
Supreme Court, Disposition of Appeals 22
Supreme Court, Manner 'of Disposition of Appeals 23
Supreme Court, Type of Disposition of Petitions 23
Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Disposed,
1985-86—1990-91 24
Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed,
1985-86—1990-91 25
Supreme Court, Processing Time for Disposed Cases 26
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 27
Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 29
Court of Appeals, Manner of Case Dispositions 29
Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1985-86—1990-91 30
Map of Judicial Divisions and Superior Court Districts 31
Map of District Court Districts 32
Map of Prosecutorial Districts 33
Judges of Superior Court • 34
Special, Emergency, and Retired/ Recalled Judges of Superior Court 35
District Court Judges 37
District Attorneys 42
Clerks of Superior Court 46
Administrative Office of the Courts 49
Juvenile Services Division — Chief Court Counselors 52
Guardian Ad Litem Division District Administrators 54
Trial Court Administrators 55
Public Defenders 57
Office of the Appellate Defender 59
Summary of Arbitration Activity 61
Child Custody and Visitation Mediation Activity 64
The North Carolina Courts Commission 65
The Judicial Standards Commission 67
Tables, Charts and Graphs
Part III
Court Resources in 1990-91
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department 71
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department 72
General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of the
Judicial Department and All State Agencies, 1984-85—1990-91 73
Judicial Department Expenditures, 1990-9 1 74
Judicial Department Expenditures, 1990-91 and 1984-85 — 1990-91 75
Judicial Department Receipts 76
Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 77
Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the
Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 78
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 81
State Mental Health Hospital Commitment Hearings 82
Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem Cases and Expenditures 83
Judicial Department Personnel 88
Part IV
Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1990-91
Superior Courts, Caseload Trends 96
Superior Courts, Caseload 97
Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 98
Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Trends 99
Superior Courts, Civil Case Filings By Case-Type 100
Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory, By District and County 101
Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition 106
Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, By District and County 107
Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Pending, By District and County 114
Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Disposed, By District and County 119
Superior Courts, Caseload Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 124
Superior Courts, Filings and Dispositions For Estates and Special Proceedings,
By District and County ^ 125
Superior Courts, Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases 130
Superior Courts, Criminal Case Filings By Case-Type 131
Superior Courts, Caseload Inventory for Criminal Cases, By District and County 132
Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies 138
Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies, By District and County 139
Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors 147
Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors, By District and County 148
Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Pending, By District and County 156
Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Disposed, By District and County 170
District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 189
District Courts, Caseload Trends 190
District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 191
District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Cases 192
in
Tables, Charts and Graphs
District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Filings By Case-Type 193
District Courts. Civil Caseload Inventory, By District and County 194
District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 199
District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases,
By District and County 200
District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Pending,
By District and County 210
District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Disposed,
By District and County 215
District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer
Cases Pending, By District and County 220
District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer
Cases Disposed, By District and County 225
District Courts, Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions,
By District and County 230
District Courts, Matters Alleged in Juvenile Petitions,
By District and County 233
District Courts, Adjudicatory Hearings For Juvenile Matters,
By District and County 238
District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Infraction
and Criminal Cases 245
District Courts, Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions,
By District and County 246
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory,
By District and County 25
1
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 256
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition,
By District and County 257
District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Pending,
By District and County 263
District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Disposed,
By District and County 269
District Courts, Infraction Case Filings and Dispositions,
By District and County 275
IV
PARTI
THE 1990-1991 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL BRANCH FACT SHEET
Fiscal Year July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991
Population and Area Served:
6,700,000
48,843
100
Population (approximate)
Square Miles
Counties
Court Organization:
44 Superior Court Districts for Administrative Purposes
60 Superior Court Districts for Elective Purposes
37 District Court Districts
37 Prosecutorial Districts
1
1
Public Defender Districts
Numbers of Justices and Judges:
7 Supreme Court Justices
12 Court of Appeals Judges
83 Superior Court Judges
179 District Court Judges
Numbers of Other Authorized Personnel:
37 District Attorneys
257 Assistant District Attorneys
100 Clerks of Superior Court
1,745 Clerk Personnel
659 Magistrates
1
1
Public Defenders
75 Assistant Public Defenders
12 Trial Court Administrators
397 Juvenile Services Personnel
77 Guardian Ad Litem Personnel
197 Administrative Office of the Courts
650 Other Staff
Total Judicial Branch Personnel: 4,498
BUDGET
Total Judicial Branch Appropriations, 1990-91:
Percent Increase from 1989-90:
Total Judicial Branch Appropriations as a Percent of Total
State General Fund Appropriations:
$205,610,446
2.39%
2.87%
CASES FILED AND DISPOSED, FISCAL YEAR 1990-91
% Change % Change
From From
Court Filed 1989-90 Disposed 1989-90
Supreme Court:
Appeals 189 8.0% 173 22.7%
Petitions 492 -21.4% 498 -17.1%
Court of Appeals:
Appeals 1,325 -5.9% 1,414 3.5%
Petitions 415 -8.0% 415 -3.7%
Superior Court*: 231,843 4.1% 218,005 7.8%
District Court**: 2,253,348 -0.8% 2,175,869 1.4%
'Includes Felonies, Misdemeanors, Civil, Estates, and Special Proceedings.
"Includes Criminal Non- vlotor Ver icle, Criminal Motor Vehicle, Infractions, Small Claims, Domestic Relations General Civil
and Magistrate Appeals / Transfers and Civil License Revocatioiis (Civil License Revocations are counted only ;it filing).
THE 1990-91 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. 1990. and ended June 30, 1991.
The Workload of the Courts
Case filings in the Supreme Court during 1990-91
totaled 189. compared with 175 filings during 1989-90. A
total of 492 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court,
compared with 626 in 1989-90, and 53 petitions were
allowed, compared with 106 in 1989-90.
For the Court of Appeals for 1990-91, 1,325 appealed
cases were filed, compared with 1,408 for the 189-90
year. Petitions filed in 1990-91 totaled 415, compared
with 451 during the 1989-90 year.
More detailed data on the appellate courts are in-cluded
in Part II of this Annual Report.
In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal)
increased by 5.6% to a total of 135,419 in 1990-91,
compared with 128,215 in 1989-90. Superior court case
dispositions increased by 9.8% to a total of 129,302,
compared with 1 17,787 in 1989-90. As case filings during
the year exceeded case dispositions, the total number of
cases pending at the end of the year increased by 6,1 17.
Not including juvenile proceedings and mental health
hospital commitment hearings, the statewide total of
district court filings (civil and criminal) during 1990-91
was 2,253,348, a decrease of 17,108 (0.8%) from 1989-90
filings of 2,270,456 cases; this marks the first decrease in
total district court filings since fiscal 1981-82. During
1990-91, a total of 651,728 infraction cases were filed
along with a total of 493,974 criminal motor vehicle
cases, for a combined total of 1,145,702 cases. This
combined total is a decrease of 20,623 cases (1.8%) from
the 1,166,325 motor vehicle and infraction cases filed
during 1989-90. During 1990-91, filings of criminal non-motor
vehicle cases in the district courts increased by
6,958 cases (1.2%) to 610,286, compared with 603,328
filed during 1989-90. Filings of civil magistrate cases in
the district courts decreased by 13,363 (4.6%), to 279,209
during 1990-91 compared with 292,572 during 1989-90.
Domestic relations case filings in the district courts
increased b 10.6%, from 77,140 in 1989-90 to 85,331 in
1990-91.
Operations of the superior and district courts are
summarized in Part II of this Report, and detailed
information on the caseloads is presented in Part IV for
the 100 countis, and for the judicial and prosecutorial
districts.
Legislative Highlights
Redistricting of District Court District 3
District Court District 3 (Pitt, Carteret, Craven and
Pamlico Counties) was divided into District Court Dis-tricts
3A (Pitt County) and 3B (Carteret, Craven and
Pamlico Counties) (Session Laws 1991, Chapter 742,
Section 12, amending G.S. 7A-133 effective September
1, 1991). As a result, District Court Districts 3A and 3B
will be coterminous with Superior Court and Prosecu-torial
Districts 3A and 3B. The legislation allocates the
seven district court judges presently authorized for
District 3, with three judges allocated to District 3A and
four judges to District 3B. (This redistricting has been
precleared by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant
to the U.S. Voting Rights Act.)
Expanded Jurisdiction of Clerks and Magistrates
The jurisdiction of clerks and magistrates in worthless
check cases was expanded to cases in which the maxi-mum
amount of the check does not exceed $2,000
(increased from $1,000) (Chapter 520, effective October
I, 1991, amending G.S. 7A- 180(8) for clerks and G.S.
7A-273(6) and (8) for magistrates).
Increases in Maximum Numbers of Magistrates
The General Assembly increased the maximum num-ber
of magistrates authorized in G.S. 7A-133 for the
following counties: Dare, from 5 to 8; Beaufort, from 5
to 8; Onslow, from 11 to 14; Wayne, from 8 to 11;
Lenoir, from 7 to 10; Wake, from 17 to 20; Orange, from
9 to 11; and Chatham, from 6 to 8 (Chapter 742, Section
I I, effective July 1, 1991). (The maximums authorized in
G.S. 7A-133 are not the numbers of positions actually
established, but rather the numbers of positions that
may Deallocated subject to funding and need.)
Extend Nonbinding Arbitration and Custody Mediation
Programs
The General Assembly authorized the Administrative
Office of the Courts to use $75,000 of the funds approp-riated
for fiscal 1991-92 to expand implementation of
two alternative dispute resolution programs to addi-tional
districts or counties (Chapter 742, Section 10).
The two programs are, first, under G.S. 7A-37.1, for
mandatory nonbinding arbitration of civil actions in-volving
claims of $15,000 or less, and second, under G.S.
7A-494, for mediation of disputes over the custody or
visitation of minor children.
Court-Ordered Mediated Settlement Conferences
New Section G.S. 7A-38 establishes a pilot program in
judicial districts to be determined by the Administrative
Office of the Courts and the senior resident superior
court judge, under which superior court civil cases may
be referred to a mediator for a pretrial settlement
conference (Chapter 207, effective October 1, 1991). The
legislation specifies that the senior resident superior
court judge may order a mediated settlement conference
for all or any part of a case, and authorizes the Supreme
Court to adopt implementing rules. The AOC is author-ized
to solicit private funds; no State funds are to be used
to establish, conduct or evaluate the pilot program. The
AOC is to submit a written report to the General
THE 1990-91 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
Assembly by May 1, 1995, evaluating whether the medi-ation
makes the operation of the superior courts more
efficient, less costly, and more satisfying to litigants.
Filing by Telefacsimile Authorized
Rule 5(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, G.S. 1A-1,
was amended to allow pleadings or other court papers to
be filed with the clerk of superior court by telefacsimile
transmission, //the Supreme Court and the Administra-tive
Office of the Courts establish uniform rules, regula-tions,
procedures, and specifications governing such
filings (Chapter 168, effective May 30, 1991).
Expansion of Automated Accounting System
The General Assembly appropriated $453,617 for
fiscal year 1991-92 to expand and enhance the auto-mated
accounting system in clerks' offices (Chapter 742,
Section 9).
Community Penalties Program, Transfer and Changes
The General Assembly transferred the Community
Penalties Program from the Department of Crime Con-trol
and Public Safety to the Administrative Office of the
Courts (Chapter 566, effective July 1, 1991, recodifying
G.S. 143B-500 et. seq. as G.S. 7A-770 et. seq.). The
Community Penalties Program was created by the Com-munity
Penalties Act of 1983 to reduce prison over-crowding
by providing judges with community sen-tencing
options to be used in lieu of and at less cost than
imprisonment. The Program awards and administers
grants to local nonprofit agencies, of which there are
presently eighteen. (An additional program in Bun-combe
County, similar to the others but not grant-funded,
was transferred to AOC in 1987.) The local
programs identify eligible convicted offenders and pre-pare
community penalty plans for sentencing judges to
consider.
This legislation also amended G.S. 7A-771(5) regard-ing
the types of offenders to be targeted for considera-tion
of a community penalty plan. The Act defines
"targeted offenders" as persons convicted of misde-meanors
or Class H, I, or J felonies, who face an
imminent and substantial threat of imprisonment. Pre-viously,
only nonviolent offenders were targeted. The
amendments remove this limitation, except for persons
convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The amend-ments
also add a requirement limiting "targeted of-fenders"
to persons who would be eligible for intensive
probation or house arrest.
New and Revised Criminal Offenses
As in previous years, in 1991 the General Assembly
enacted legislation in areas of criminal law that, al-though
not directly pertaining to court offices, impacts
on criminal caseloads or procedures and thus affects
court operations. Possession of drugs in prison or jail
was made a Class I felony (Chapter 484, adding subsec-tion
G.S. 90-95(e)(9) effective October 1, 1991), and
additional drugs were added to the list of Schedule
III controlled substances (Chapter 413, amending
G.S. 90-91(k) effective July 1, 1991). Two bills ad-dressed
the subject of "hate crimes" (Chapters 493 and
702, both effective October 1, 1991). A new misde-meanor
offense of ethnic intimidation was created in
G.S. 14-401.14, and commission of an offense because of
a person's race, color, religion or nationality was made
an aggravating factor for felony sentencing under G.S.
15A- 1340.4(a)(1) and will enhance punishment of mis-demeanor
offenses or make misdemeanor offenses Class
J felonies under new subsection G.S. 14-3(c). Law
enforcement officers were authorized to make war-rantless
arrests for certain domestic assaults (Chapter
150, amending G.S. 15A-401(b) effective October 1,
1991). Other new offenses or expanded punishments
included reclassification of worthless check offenses
from misdemeanors to Class J felonies for checks in
excess of $2,000 (Chapter 523, Section 1, amending G.S.
14-107 effective October 1, 1991); possession of a weapon
on educational property (Chapter 622 amending G.S.
14-269.2 effective October 1, 1991); littering laws (Chap-ter
609, effective October 1, 1991); and criminally negli-gent
hunting (Chapter 748 adding G.S. 1 13-290 effective
October 1, 1991).
Prison Facilities
The General Assembly allocated $103.4 million of the
$200 million in prison bond funds approved by the
voters in a referendum in November 1990 (Chapter 689,
Section 239). The authorized projects will add 3,298 beds
to the State prison system. An additional $9.1 million
was allocated to the Department of Human Resources to
expand and renovate juvenile training schools to which
juveniles may be committed after an adjudication of
delinquency.
Prison Population
In Chapter 437, effective in stages, the General As-sembly
amended G.S. 148-4.1, revising the maximum
number of prisoners that can be housed in the State
prison system before the Parole Commission must re-duce
the prison population by granting parole to other-wise
eligible offenders. The "prison cap" was reduced
from 20,026 to 19,253 effective June 30, 1991, raised to
19,986 effective February 1, 1992, and raised to 20,182
effective May 1, 1992. The Secretary of Correction may
advance or delay the effective dates by up to 45 days
based on the availability of prison space.
Fiscal Notes for Legislation Affecting Prisons
New Section G.S. 120-36.7 requires preparation of a
fiscal note estimating the costs of any proposed change
in law that could cause a net increase in the number of
incarcerated persons or in the length of time for which
THE 1990-91 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
prisoners are incarcerated (Chapter 689, Section 340).
The fiscal notes, which are to cover the first five years
that the proposed change in law would be in effect, are to
be prepared by the Fiscal Research Division of the
General Assembly in consultation with the Sentencing
and Policy Advisory Commission. (The Administrative
Office of the Courts has been consulted routinely for
necessary data and analysis in connection with fiscal
notes. This law expands and institutionalizes the prepara-tion
of fiscal notes.)
Investigative Grand Juries Expanded; Sunset Removed
The special type of grand jury that the General
Assembly first authorized in 1986 for investigation of
drug trafficking offenses was made permanent (Chapter
686, removing the law's October 1, 1993, expiration
date). This legislation also amends certain provisions of
G.S. 15A-622(h) and G.S. 15A-623(h), permitting an
investigative grand jury to be convened from an existing
grand jury, allowing otherwise admissible testimony to
be used at trial, specifying a twelve-month term for the
members of an investigative grand jury, and requiring
that when necessary to prevent disclosure of the grand
jury's existence, the superior court judge may hear
matters concerning an investigative grand jury in camera
(not in open court) with a court reporter present.
Increased Funding for Indigent Defense
One of the fastest growing components of the Judicial
Department budget has been the costs for providing
legal representation for indigent persons who have a
right to a court-appointed lawyer. The General Assembly
appropriated the following increases: for the Indigent
Persons' Attorney Fee Fund, $2,374,043 for 1991-92 and
S2,369,249 for 1992-93; for the Special Capital Case
Rehearing Fund, S547,626 for 1991-92 and $1,048,424
for 1992-93; and for additional needs of the Guardian
Ad Litem Volunteer and Contract Program, $225,000
for each year of the 1991-1993 biennium. (These are
expansion amounts; total indigent defense spending in
1990-91 came to $29.4 million. The appropriations for
1992-93 are subject to revision by the General Assembly
in the 1992 Session.)
Indigent Defense Studies
The General Assembly directed the Administrative
Office of the Courts to conduct two studies relating to
the types of programs used to provide lawyers for
indigent persons (Chapter 689, Section 81). First, the
legislature requested a report on the cost-effectiveness of
establishing a public defender office in three districts
that do not presently have public defender offices:
Districts 4A (Duplin, Jones and Sampson Counties), 5
(New Hanover and Pender Counties) and 10 (Wake
County). These districts were identified in a previous
AOC study as being close to the point where a public
defender office may be cost-effective. Second, the
General Assembly requested a report on the cost-effectiveness
of existing public defender offices. Final
reports are to be submitted by May 20, 1992.
Indigent Defense Contracting Pilot
The General Assembly authorized the Administrative
Office of the Courts to conduct a pilot project in three
districts for providing indigent defense by means of
"specialized" contracts with one or more private attor-neys
(Chapter 575, Section 2). Authority already exists
in G.S. 7A-344(4) for such specialized contract represen-tation
in juvenile cases, but not for criminal or other
indigent defense cases. A written evaluation of the pilot
project is to be submitted to the General Assembly by
May 1, 1993.
Commitment Following Not Guilty by Reason of
Insanity
Following a study by a committee of the Legislative
Research Commission, the General Assembly rewrote
the laws governing civil commitment of persons charged
with a crime and found not guilty by reason of insanity
(Chapter 37, effective April 16, 1991, adding new sections
G.S. 122C-268.1 and G.S. 122C-276.1, and amending
G.S. 15A-1321 and other sections in G.S. Chapter
1 22C). In place of provisions that apply to civil commit-ments
generally, the legislation establishes special com-mitment
standards and procedures for defendants found
not guilty by reason of insanity. Immediately following
such a disposition, the judge must order the defendant
committed to a State 24-hour mental health facility. The
first review of the commitment occurs at a hearing
within fifty days (compared to ten days for commitments
generally). The first and subsequent review hearings are
held in the trial division in which the criminal case was
tried and are open to the public (other commitment pro-ceedings
are district court hearings and are confidential).
At the first and subsequent hearings, committed persons
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they
are no longer dangerous to others and, if this burden is
met, that they are no longer mentally ill or that confine-ment
is no longer necessary (in other civil commitment
proceedings, the State must show by clear, cogent and
convincing evidence that the patient is mentally ill and
dangerous to self or others).
Family Law Changes
The General Assembly enacted several changes in laws
and procedures governing divorce and equitable distri-bution.
G.S. 50-10 was amended to authorize use of sum-mary
judgment in an action for absolute divorce (Chap-ter
568, effective October 1, 1991). Other measures
included authorization for orders making interim trans-fers
of assets while an equitable distribution action is
pending (Chapter 635, adding G.S. 50-20(il) effective
October 1, 1991); a rebuttable presumption that property
THE 1990-91 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
obtained during marriage and before separation is mari-tal
property (Chapter 625, amending G.S. 50-20(b)(I)
effective October I, 1991); and an act authorizing the
guardian of an incompetent spouse to commence domes-tic
relations actions, including for equitable distribution
but with an exception for absolute divorce (Chapter 610,
adding G.S. 50-22 effective October 1, 1991).
Court Costs Increased
The 1991 Session of the General Assembly increased
the costs for support of the General Court of Justice by
four dollars in civil, criminal and infraction cases in
superior and district courts (Chapter 742, Section 15
amending G.S. 7A-304 and G.S. 7A-305 effective July 1,
1991).
New Positions
The General Assembly appropriated or authorized the
use of funds for the following new positions during fiscal
1991-92: ten assistant district attorneys, one each for
Prosecutorial Districts 7, 10, 15A, 19A, 20, 22, 25, and
29, and two in District 26; seven secretaries for District
Attorney offices; two magistrates to be allocated in
accordance with G.S. 7A-171; and 34 deputy clerks. The
General Assembly also authorized use of funds from the
Indigent Persons Attorney Fee Fund for five assistant
public defender positions during 1991-92 and five addi-tional
positions during 1992-93.
Appropriations
The 1991 General Assembly appropriated $206,206,015
to the Judicial Department for fiscal 1991-92 and
$211,237,680 for fiscal 1992-93 (current operations,
Chapter 689, Section 3; the 1992-93 appropriation is
subject to revision by the General Assembly in the 1992
Session).
PART II
COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION
AND OPERATIONS
• Historical Development of Court System
• Present Court System
• Organization and Operations in 1990-91
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
adjustment. 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 chief
justice, but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the power
to appoint the associate justices. Other controversies
developed concerning 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 appointment. 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
disagreement between local and royal partisans. As a
result, North Carolina was without higher courts until
after Independence (Battle, 847).
At the lower court level during the colonial period,
judicial 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 1776, the
colonial structure of the court system was retained largely
intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the
county courts 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 Assem-bly,
and they were paid out of fees charged litigants. On
the lowest level of the judicial system, magistrate courts of
limited jurisdiction 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 inter-changeable
during 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 New-some,
291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflictingjudge
opinions, an 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 perma-nent
by subsequent 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 1805 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 themselves heard in the districts in panels of as
few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 1818, though, an inde-pendent
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 1 806, 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 1 868. 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
membership of the Supreme Court was raised to five, and
the selection of the justices (including the designation of
the chief justice) and superior court judges (raised in
number to 1 2) 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 be-tween
the Superior Courts and the individual justices of
the peace, who were retained as separate judicial officers
with limited jurisdiction.
Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 Con-stitution
in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme Court
Historical Development Of The North Carolina Court System, Continued
justices to three and the Superior Court judges to nine.
The General Assembly, instead of the governor, was given
the power to appoint justices of the peace. Most of the
modernizing changes in the post-Civil War Constitution,
however, were left, and the judicial structure it had
established continued without systematic modification
through more than half of the 20th century. (A further
constitutional amendment approved by the voters in
November, 1888, returned the Supreme Court member-ship
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
systematic 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 counties)
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 recorder's
courts; the general county courts, county criminal courts
and special county courts; the domestic relations courts
and the juvenile courts. Some of these had been estab-lished
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), prelimi-nary
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 similar
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 revision
of the court system received the attention and support of
Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who encouraged the
leadership of the North Carolina Bar Association to
pursue the matter. A Court Study Committee was
established as an agency of the North Carolina 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 structuring of an all-inclusive
court system which would be directly state-operated,
uniform in its organization throughout the
State and centralized in its administration. The plan was
for a simplified, streamlined and unified structure. A
particularly important part of the proposal was the
elimination of the local statutory courts and their replace-ment
by a single District Court; the office ofjustice of the
peace was to be abolished, and the newly fashioned
position of magistrate would function 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 Assembly
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 continued.
In 1 965, the Constitution was amended to provide 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; implementing legislation pro-vides
for such action upon the recommendation of the
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 Constitu-tion,
to appoint judges according to "merit" instead of
electing them by popular, partisan vote. The proposed
amendments received the backing of a majority of the
members of each house, but not the three-fifths required
to submit constitutional amendments to a vote of the
people. Merit selection continues to be a significant issue
before the General Assembly.
10
Historical Development Of The North Carolina Court System, Continued
Major Sources
Battle, Kemp P., An Address on the History of the Supreme Court
(Delivered in 1888). 1 North Carolina Reports 835-876.
Hinsdale, C. E., County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition.
Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina: The
History of a Southern State. 1963 Edition.
Sanders, John L., Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A
Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of
Government.
Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold, North Carolina Courts ofLaw
and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular, 1973.
11
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal
(As of June 30, 1991)
Recommendations
from Judicial
Standards Commission
SUPREME
COURT
7 Justices
Original Jurisdiction
All felony cases; civil
cases in excess of
SI 0.000*
SUPERIOR
COURTS
83 Judges
Final Order of
Utilities Commission in
General Rate Cases
COURT OF
APPEALS
12 Judges V(2)
Decisions of
Most Administrative
Agencies
Original Jurisdiction
Probate and estates,
special proceedings
'condemnations,
adoptions, partitions,
foreclosures, etc.); in
certain littering cases,
may accept guilty pleas
and enter judgments
Vcriminal cases
(for trial de novo) civil cases
DISTRICT
COURTS
/ 79 Judges
Clerks of Superior
Court
(100)
Magistrates
(659)
N
Decisions of Industrial
Commission, State Bar,
Property Tax Commission,
Commissioner of Insurance,
Dept. of Human Resources,
Commissioner of Banks,
Administrator of Savings and
Loans, Governor's Waste
Management Board, and the
Utilities Commission (in cases
other than general rate cases)
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 and admissions
of responsibility to infractions;
worthless check misdemeanors
$1,000 or less; small claims
$2,000 or less; valuation of
property in certain estate
cases
(1) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in cases involving constitutional 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 first degree murder cases in which the defendent has been sentenced to death or
life imprisonment, and in Utilities Commission genera) rate cases. 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 of significant public interest, cases involving legal principles of major
significance, where delay would cause substantial harm, or when the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full.
*The district and superior courts have concurrent original jurisdiction in civil actions (G.S. 7A-242). However, the district court division is the
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).
12
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution establ-ishes
the General Court of Justice which "shall consti-ute
a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction,
)peration, and administration, and shall consist of an
Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a
District Court Division."
The Appellate Division consists of the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals.
The Superior Court Division is composed of the
superior courts, which hold sessions in the county seats
of the 100 counties of the State. There are 60 superior
court districts for electoral purposes only. For adminis-trative
purposes, these are collapsed into 44 districts or
'sets of districts." Some superior court districts comprise
one county, some comprise two or more counties, and
the more populous counties are divided into two or more
districts for purposes of election of superior court judges.
One or more superior court judges are elected for each of
the superior court districts. A clerk of the superior court
for each county is elected by the voters of the county.
The District Court Division comprises 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. There are 37 district court districts, with each
district composed of one or more counties. One or more
district court judges are elected for each of the district
court districts. The Constitution also provides that one
or more magistrates "who shall be officers of the district
court" shall be appointed in each county.
The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains
the term, "judicial department," and states 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 government, nor shall it establish or authorize any
courts other than as permitted by this Article." The
terms, "General Court of Justice" and "Judicial Depart-ment"
are almost, but not quite, synonymous. It may be
said that the Judicial Department encompasses all of the
levels of court designated as the General Court of Justice
plus all administrative and ancillary services within the
Judicial Department.
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 previous page.
Criminal and Infraction Cases
Trial of misdemeanor and infraction cases is within
the original jurisdiction of the district courts. Worthless
check cases under $1,000 may be tried by magistrates,
who are also empowered to accept pleas of guilty and
admissions of responsibility to certain misdemeanor and
infraction offenses and impose fines in accordance with a
schedule set by the Conference of Chief District Court
Judges. Clerks of Superior Court may also accept guilty
pleas and enter judgments in certain littering cases. 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 jurisdic-tion
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
district courts' judgments in criminal cases is to the
superior courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in
life-imprisonment or death sentence first degree murder
cases (which are appealed to the Supreme Court),
appeals of right from the superior courts are 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
estate 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, and petitions for
involuntary 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 controversy is $2,000 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.
The General Assembly, under G.S. 7A-37.1, has
authorized statewide expansion of court-ordered, non-binding
arbitration in certain civil actions where claims
do not exceed $15,000. The parties' rights to trial de
novo and jury trial are preserved. As of June 30, 1991,
arbitration programs had been established in nine judi-cial
districts.
Statewide child custody and visitation mediation pro-grams
are also being phased in upon authorization of the
General Assembly (G.S. 7A-494). Unless the court grants
a waiver, custody and visitation disputes must be referred
to a mediator, who helps the parties reach a cooperative,
nonadversarial resolution in the child's best interests.
Any agreement reached is submitted to the court and,
unless the court finds good reason for it not to, becomes
a part of the court's order in the case. Issues not resolved
by the mediation are reported by the mediator to the
court. As of June 30, 1991, these mediation programs
were operating in three judicial districts.
13
The Present Court System, Continued
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 supple-ment
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
responsible for scheduling the sessions of the Court of
Appeals.
The chart following illustrates specific trial court
administrative responsibilities vested in Judicial Depart-ment
officials by statute. The Chief Justice appoints the
Director and Assistant Director of the Administrative
Office of the Courts; the Assistant Director also serves as
the Chief Justice's administrative assistant. 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 37 district
court 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
provision of legal counsel to indigent persons, juvenile
probation and aftercare, guardian ad litem services, trial
court administrator services, planning, and general ad-ministrative
services.
The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk
for both the superior and the district courts. Day-to-day
calendaring of civil cases is handled by the clerk of
superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in
some districts, under the supervision of the senior resi-dent
superior court judge and chief district court judge.
The criminal case calendars in both superior courts and
district courts are set by the district attorney of the
respective district.
14
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts
CHIEF JUSTICE
and
SUPREME COURT
2
Administrative
Office of
the Courts
(37) District
Attorneys
(44) Senior Resident
Judges; (100) Clerks
of Superior Court
SUPERIOR
COURTS
(37) 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 the Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the
pleasure of the Chief Justice.
3The 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 from the judges elected in each of the 37 district court
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 the district court of the 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.
15
THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
(As of June 30, 1991)
Chief Justice
JAMES G. EXUM, JR.
Associate Justices
LOUIS B. MEYER
BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR.
HARRY C. MARTIN
HENRY E. FRYE
JOHN WEBB
WILLIS P. WHICHARD
Retired Chief Justices
WILLIAM H. BOBBITT
SUSIE SHARP
Retired Justices
I. BEVERLY LAKE
J. FRANK HUSKINS
DAVID M. BRITT
Clerk
Christie Speir Price
Librarian
Louise H. Stafford
Chief Justice Exum
16
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. The Court 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 Com-mission
(cases involving final order or decision in a
general rate matter);
- criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior
courts (first degree murder cases in which the
defendant has been sentenced 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 substantial harm or when the workload of
the Appellate Division is such that the expeditious
administration 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 prescribe 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
sessions 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
the 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 court
judges in each of the State's 37 district court 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 tem-porary
or specialized 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 North
Carolina 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 Administrative Law Judge of the Office of
Administrative Hearings.
Expenses of the Court, 1990-91
Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the
1990-91 fiscal year amounted to $2,909,823. Expendi-tures
for the Supreme Court during 1990-91 constituted
1 .4% of all General Fund expenditures for the operation
of the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year.
Case Data, 1990-91
A total of 345 appealed cases were before the Supreme
Court during the fiscal year, 156 that were pending on
July 1, 1990, plus 189 cases filed through June 30, 1991.
A total of 173 of these cases were disposed of, leaving
172 cases pending on June 30, 1991.
A total of 578 petitions (requests to appeal) were
before the Court during the 1990-91 year, with 498
disposed during the year and 80 pending as of June 30,
1991. The Court granted 53 petitions for review during
1990-91 compared to 106 for 1989-90.
More detailed data on the Court's workload are
presented on the following pages.
17
SUPREME COURT CASELOAD INVENTORY
July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991
Petitions for Review
Civil domestic
Juvenile
Other civil
Criminal
Administrative agency decision
Total Petitions for Review
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
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
Requests for advisory opinion
Motions
Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear
Total Other Proceedings
Pending Pending
7/1/90 Filed Disposed 6/30/91
4 26 24 6
1 5 5 1
58 247 246 59
16 191 194 13
7 23 29 1
86 492 498 80
2 5
2
6
1
1
1
1
2 1 1
1
32
29
40
35
35
34
37
30
35 25 21 39
30 35 33 32
7
12
22
9
15
13
14
8
6 8 8 6
2 6 6 2
156 189 173 172
2 17
554
5
8
554
4
11
1
576 566 12
18
APPEALS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT
July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991
Other Civil
39.7% (75)
Juvenile
1.1% (2)
Other Criminal
16.4% (31)
Criminal-Death
13.2% (25)
Criminal-Life
18.5% (35)
Admin. Agency
7.4% (14)
Civil Domestic
3.7% (7)
PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT
July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991
Other Civil
50.2% (247)
Juvenile
1.0% (5)
Criminal
38.8% (191)
Civil Domestic
Admin. Agency 5.3% (26)
4.7% (23)
19
SUPREME COURT CASELOAD TYPES
by Superior Court Division and District
July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991
Judicial Superior Court Total Death Life Other Civil Other Cases
Division District Cases Cases Cases Criminal Cases Cases Disposed
I 1 7 3 1 2 1 2
2 5 1 2 2 2
3A 7 1 1 2 3 3
3B 10 2 2 6 5
4A s 4 3 1 2
4B b 2 1 3 3
5 13 3 5 2 3 4
6A 6 4 2 1
6B 3 1 1 1 1
7A 2 1 I 1
7B-C 7 I 1 5 3
8A 3 3 1
8B 4 1 1 2 4
SUBTOTAL 81 21 21 17 22 32
II 9 7 1 1 1 4 5
10 53 7 3 1 15 27 27
11 13 1 3 2 7 3
12 12 3 I 4 4 8
13 8 2 3 1 2 3
14 10 2 2 4 2 3
15A 11 2 3 1 5 4
15B 10 2 2 5 1 4
16A 3 1 2 1
16B 13 5 5 3 4
SUBTOTAL 140 24 21 17 48 30 62
III 17A 5 2 2 1 3
17B 5 1 1 1 2 2
18 22 2 7 4 9 9
19A 1 1 1
19B 4 1 3 2
19C 3 2 1 1
20A X 2 1 5 4
20 B 1 1 1
21 29 1 5 4 18 1 13
22 9 5 1 3 6
23 5 1 3 1 3
SUBTOTAL 92 17 22 11 41 1 45
IV 24 6 1 5
25 A 5 2 I 2 2
25B 5 I 2 2 1
26 27 4 7 2 14 8
27A 5 1 1 3 4
27B 2 1 1
28 15 2 1 12 8
29 14 2 6 3 3 9
30A 7 2 1 1 3 1
30B 2 1 1 I
SUBTOTAL 88 14 19 10 45 34
TOTALS 401 76 83 55 156 31 173
NOTE: Includes life & death sentence cases awaiting Record on Appeal and not yet formally docketed.
20
SUBMISSION OF CASES REACHING DECISION STAGE IN SUPREME COURT
July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991
Cases Argued
Civil Domestic
Juvenile
Other Civil
Criminal (death sentence)
Criminal (life sentence)
Other Criminal
Administrative Agency Decision
Total cases argued
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
6
1
70
26
30
27
13
173
I
1
2
175
DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS BY THE SUPREME COURT
July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991
Granted* Denied
1 22
5
37 207
10 171
5 23
53 428
Petitions for Review
Civil Domestic
Juvenile
Other Civil
Criminal
Administrative Agency Decision
Total Petitions for Review
Other Proceedings
Rule 16(b) — Additional Issues
Advisory Opinion
Motions
Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear
Total Other Proceedings
*"Granted" includes orders allowing relief without accepting the case as a full appeal.
Dismissed/
Withdrawn
1
2
13
1
17
Total
Disposed
24
5
246
194
29
498
8
554
4
566
21
DISPOSITION OF SUPREME COURT APPEALS
July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Signed Opinions
Reversed Total
Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed
Civil domestic I 3 4
Juvenile
Other civil 11 2 6 15 2 36
Criminal (death sentence) 2 19 21
Criminal (life sentence) 25 6 31
Other criminal 7 1 4 4 1 17
Administrative agency decision 3 6 9
Totals 48 11 28 28 118
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Opinions
Reversed Total
Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed
Civil domestic 2 2
Juvenile
Other civil 20 3 3 1 27
Criminal (death sentence)
Criminal (life sentence) 1 1
Other criminal 6 1 7
Administrative agency decision 4 4
Totals 33 41
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
Administrative agency decision
Totals
1
I
6
I
4
I
14
22
MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF APPEALS
IN THE SUPREME COURT
July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991
Dismissed/Withdrawn
8.1% (14)
Signed Opinions
68.2% (118)
Per Curiam Opinions
23.7% (41)
TYPE OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
IN THE SUPREME COURT
July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991
Dismissed/Withdrawn
3.4% (17)
Granted
10.6% (53)
Denied
85.9% (428)
23
250
200
150
Number
of
Cases
100
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Appeals Docketed and Disposed During the Years 1985-86 -- 1990-91
50
1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91
H Appeals Docketed CJ Appeals Disposed
24
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years 1985-86 -- 1990-91
800
700
600
500
lumber
of 400
Cases
300
200
100
1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90
I Petitions Docketed LJ Petitions Allowed
1990-91
25
SUPREME COURT PROCESSING TIME FOR DISPOSED CASES
(Total time in days from docketing to decision)
July 1, 1990 — June 30, 1991
Number (Days) (Days)
of Cases Median Mean
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
Administrative agency decision
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative
agency decision
Total appeals
6 250 251
1 309 309
1 121 121
35 226 249
34 256 304
21 483 557
33 309 349
15 210 215
13 273 346
8 287 372
6 279 265
73 287 327
26
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
(As of June 30, 1991)
Chief Judge
R. A. HEDRICK
GERALD ARNOLD
HUGH A. WELLS
CLIFTON E. JOHNSON
EUGENE H. PHILLIPS
SIDNEYS. EAGLES, JR.
SARAH PARKER
Judges
JACK COZORT
ROBERT F. ORR
K. EDWARD GREENE
JOHN B. LEWIS, JR.
JAMES A. WYNN,JR.
FRANK M. PARKER
EDWARD B. CLARK
ROBERT M. MARTIN
Retired Judges
CECIL J. HILL
E. MAURICE BRASWELL
Clerk
FRANCIS E. DAIL
Assistant Clerk
JOHN H. CONNELL
27
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 designates 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.
cases). Appeals from the decisions of other administra-tive
agencies lie first within the jurisdiction of the
superior courts.
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
chair). Such seven-member panel would have sole
jurisdiction to act upon the Commission's recommen-dation.
Expenses of the Court, 1990-91
Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during
the 1990-91 fiscal year totaled $3,778,530. Expenditures
for the Court of Appeals during 1990-91 amounted to
1.8% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of
the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year.
Jurisdiction
The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals
consists of cases appealed from the trial courts. The
Court also hears appeals directly from the Industrial
Commission, along with appeals from certain final orders
or decisions of the North Carolina State Bar, the Com-missioner
of Insurance, the Department of Human Re-sources,
the Commissioner of Banks, the Administrator
of Savings and Loans, the Governor's Waste Manage-ment
Board, the Property Tax Commission, and the
Utilities Commission (in cases other than general rate
Case Data, 1990-91
A total of 1,325 appealed cases were filed before the
Court of Appeals during the period July 1, 1990 - June
30, 1991. A total of 1,414 cases were disposed of during
the same period. During 1990-91, a total of 415 petitions
and 1,295 motions were filed before the Court of
Appeals.
Further detail on the workload of the Court of
Appeals is shown in the table and graph on the following
pages.
28
FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991
Cases on Appeal Filings Dispositions
Civil cases appealed from district courts
Civil cases appealed from superior courts
Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies
Criminal cases appealed from superior courts
238
581
72
434
Totals 1325 1,414
Petitions
Allowed
Denied
Remanded
174
241
Totals 415 415
Motions
Allowed
Denied
Remanded
905
390
Totals
Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions, and Motions
1,295
3,035
1,295
3,124
MANNER OF CASE DISPOSITIONS -- COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991
Cases Disposed by Written Opinion
Cases Affirmed
Cases Cases In Part, Reversed Other Cases Total Cases
Affirmed Reversed In Part Disposed Disposed
962 199 102 151 1,414
2^
FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
1985-86 -- 1990-91
2.500
2,000
1,500
Number
of
Cases
1,000
500
1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91
H Filings LJ Dispositions
Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed cases and petitions (but not motions) filed in the Court of Appeals.
30
^ On ©2
u o
en
.«2 1 I—
5
a° P* 00
in M
* ^
2 Q
r^ 1
U
c c
E 9
5U
So
5 ^.
1 =
13
©H
31
5
x.
s
W On
•— o
U en
ts a
.9 8
o-u
©
a.
-ac
03 -a
1
o
fa
u
y
X
< CO
Q
u CO On o
(/I 3
O c CO
u
c CO u m
Q •c o
8 13
CO
Q
c
to
O o t! u
1
3 3
O
r > 3 ^^
CO o OS
r ) g o U On
•c CL, 'B o
'
CO 05
05
tS)
•c
D.
E
o
Q •c
CO ha u
03
•c
o
8 a
C <u
a- t3
E
o
CO eo
>
to o o -o <u
•fi <
eg On
b ^ E
>
o
co
O 3O
•c
to
00 <
u
PQ
is
CO u Q a CO
-n
T3 o T rt c £
3
HI u
Cfl o O <
P 3 cn
(J
o CO
uu
CO
On CO
U
OO
n 1
CO -a
c
CO
5
jj
C £ s
o „ ( ) 3
£ ft
ON U
^2
+>
.a
+^
5
is
o r1
u ..
0> o
</5 en
© (D
cd o
c - •mm &
ou
U
o
w
c c u . —
E P
21 o Z
2 >,
©s-
33
JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT
(As of June 30, 1991)
FIRST DIVISION
District
1 *J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City
Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City
2 *William C. Griffin, Jr., Williamston
3A *David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville
W. Russell Duke, Jr., Greenville
3B * Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City
4A * Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville
4B *James R. Strickland, Jacksonville
5 *Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington
Ernest B. Fullwood, Wilmington
Gary E. Trawick, Burgaw
6A *Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids
6B *Cy Anthony Grant, Sr., Windsor
7A *Quentin T. Sumner, Rocky Mount
7B G. K. Butterfield, Jr., Wilson
7C *Frank R. Brown, Tarboro
8A *James D. Llewellyn, Kinston
8B *Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro
SECOND DIVISION
9 *Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg
Henry W. Hight, Jr., Henderson
10A George R. Greene, Raleigh
10B *Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh
Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh
IOC Narley L. Cashwell, Raleigh
10D Donald W. Stephens, Raleigh
1 1 *Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn
Knox V. Jenkins, Four Oaks
12A Jack A. Thompson, Fayetteville
12B Gregory A. Weeks, Fayetteville
12C *Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville
E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville
13 *Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown
William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville
14A Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., Durham
14B *Anthony M. Brannon, Durham
J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham
A. Leon Stanback, Jr., Durham
15A *J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington
15B *F. Gordon Battle, Hillsborough
16A *B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg
16B * Joe Freeman Britt, Lumberton
Dexter Brooks, Pembroke
THIRD DIVISION
District
17A *Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., Wentworth
Peter M. McHugh, Wentworth
17B *James M. Long, Pilot Mountain
18A W. Steven Allen, Sr., Greensboro
18B Howard R. Greeson, Jr., Greensboro
18C *W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro
18D Thomas W. Ross, Greensboro
18E Joseph R. John, Greensboro
19A *James C. Davis, Concord
I9B *Russell G. Walker, Jr., Asheboro
19C *Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer
20A *F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro
James M. Webb, Southern Pines
20B *William H. Helms, Monroe
21
A
William Z. Wood, Jr., Winston-Salem
21
B
*Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem
21
C
William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem
21
D
James A. Beaty, Jr., Winston-Salem
22 *Preston Cornelius, Mooresville
Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville
23 *Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro
FOURTH DIVISION
24 *Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone
25A *Claude S. Sitton, Morganton
Beverly T. Beal, Lenoir
25B *Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory
26A Marcus L. Johnson, Charlotte
Shirley L. Fulton, Charlotte
26B Julia V. Jones, Charlotte
Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte
26C * Robert M. Burroughs, Sr., Charlotte
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte
27A *Robert W. Kirby, Gastonia
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia
27B *John Mull Gardner, Shelby
28 * Robert D. Lewis, Asheville
C. Walter Allen, Asheville
29 *Zoro J. Guice, Rutherfordton
Loto Greenlee Caviness, Marion
30A *James U. Downs, Franklin
30B *Janet M. Hyatt, Waynesville
"Senior Resident Superior Court Judge of the district or "set of districts"
34
SPECIAL JUDGE OF SUPERIOR COURT
Marvin K. Gray, Charlotte
EMERGENCY AND RETIRED/RECALLED JUDGES
OF SUPERIOR COURT
(As of June 30, 1991)
James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh
George M. Fountain, Tarboro
John R. Friday, Lincolnton
Peter W. Hairston, Advance
Darius B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville
Hamilton H. Hobgood, Louisburg
Harvey A. Lupton, Winston-Salem
John D. McConnell, Pinehurst
Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton
D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington
Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton
L. Bradford Tillery, Wilmington
Edward K. Washington, High Point
The Conference of Superior Court Judges
(Executive Committee as of June 30, 1991)
Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown, President
Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro, President- Elect
F. Gordon Battle, Hillsborough, Vice-President
E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville, Secretary-Treasurer
J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City, Immediate Past- President
Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg, and
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte, Ex Officio
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington, and
Claude S. Sitton, Morganton,
Additional Executive Committee Members
Judge Giles R. Clark
35
THE SUPERIOR COURTS
North Carolina's superior courts are the general juris-diction
trial courts for the state. In 1990-91, there were
82 "resident" superior court judges elected by Statewide
ballot to office for eight-year terms in the 60 superior
court districts. In addition, one "special" superior court
judge has been appointed by the Governor.
Jurisdiction
The superior court has original jurisdiction in all
felony cases and in those misdemeanor cases specified
under G.S. 7A-271. (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
SI 0,000, and it has jurisdiction over appeals from admin-istrative
agencies except for county game commissions,
from which appeals are heard in district court, and from
the Industrial Commission, the Commissioner of Insur-ance,
the North Carolina State Bar, the Property Tax
Commission, the Department of Human Resources, the
Commissioner of Banks, the Administrator of Savings
and Loans, the Governor's Waste Management Board,
and the Utilities Commission. Appeals from these agen-cies
lie directly to the North Carolina Court of Appeals
(except for Utilities Commission general rate cases,
which go directly to the Supreme Court). 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 court, 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 100 counties in North Carolina are grouped into
60 superior court districts. Some superior court districts
comprise one county; some comprise two or more
counties; and the more populous counties are divided
among a "set of districts," composed of two or more
districts created for purposes of election of superior
court judges. Each district has at least one resident
superior court judge who has certain administrative
responsibilities for his or her home district, such as
providing for civil case calendaring procedures. (Crimi-nal
case calendars are prepared by the district attorneys.)
In districts or sets of districts with more than one
resident superior court judge, the judge senior in service
on the superior court bench exercises these supervisory
powers.
The superior court districts are grouped into four
divisions for the rotation of superior court judges, as
shown on the preceding superior court district map.
Within the division, resident superior court judges are
required to rotate among the superior court districts and
hold court for at least six months in each, then move on
to their next assignment. The 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
(of one 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 sessions about every week in the
year.
Expenditures
A total of $19,102,345 was expended on the operations
of the superior courts during the 1990-91 fiscal year. This
included the salaries and travel expenses for the 83
superior court judges, and salaries and expenses for trial
court administrators, court reporters and secretarial
staff for superior court judges. Expenditures for the
superior courts amounted to 9.2% of all General Fund
expenditures for operation of the entire Judicial Depart-ment
during the 1990-91 fiscal year.
Caseload
Including both civil and criminal cases, 135,419 cases
were filed in the superior courts during 1990-91, an
increase of 7,204 cases (5.6%) from the total of 128,215
cases that were filed in 1989-90. There were increases in
filings in all case categories: civil cases (4.6%), felony
cases (5.9%), and misdemeanor cases (5.7%).
Superior court case dispositions increased from
117,787 in 1989-90 to 129,302 in 1990-91. Dispositions in
all case types increased: civil cases (10.0%), felony cases
(9.2%), and misdemeanor cases (10.6%).
More detailed information on the flow of cases
through the superior courts is included in Part IV of this
Report.
36
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1991)
District
6A
6B
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City
John R. Parker, Manteo
Janice M. Cole, Hertford
Hallett S. Ward, Washington
Samuel G. Grimes, Washington
James W. Hardison, Williamston
E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville
David A. Leech, Greenville
Willie L. Lumpkin, III, Morehead City
James E. Martin, Grifton
James E. Ragan, III, Oriental
George L. Wainwright, Morehead City
Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill
William M. Cameron, Jr., Jacksonville
Wayne G. Kimble, Jr., Jacksonville
Leonard W. Thagard, Clinton
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville
Paul A. Hardison, Jacksonville
Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington
Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington
Charles E. Rice, III, Wilmington
Elton Glenn Tucker, Wilmington
John W. Smith, II, Wilmington
W. Allen Cobb, Jr., Wilmington
Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck
Alfred W. Kwasikpui, Jackson
Thomas R. Newbern, Aulander
George Britt, Tarboro
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson
M. Alexander Biggs, Jr., Rocky Mount
Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson
Sarah F. Patterson, Rocky Mount
Joseph J. Harper, Jr., Tarboro
J. Patrick Exum, Kinston
Kenneth R. Ellis, Goldsboro
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro
Joseph E. Setzer, Jr., Goldsboro
Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford
H. Weldon Lloyd, Jr., Henderson
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton
Charles W. Wilkinson, Jr., Oxford
District
10 George F. Bason, Raleigh
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh
William A. Creech, Raleigh
James R. Fullwood, Raleigh
Joyce A. Hamilton, Raleigh
Jerry W. Leonard, Raleigh
Fred M. Morelock, Raleigh
Louis W. Payne, Jr., Raleigh
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh
Donald W. Overby, Raleigh
Anne B. Salisbury, Raleigh
1
1
William A. Christian, Sanford
Samuel S. Stephenson, Angier
Edward H. McCormick, Lillington
O. Henry Willis, Jr., Dunn
Tyson Y. Dobson, Jr., Smithfield
Albert A. Corbett, Jr., Smithfield
12 Sol G. Cherry, Fayetteville
John S. Hair, Jr., Fayetteville
James F. Ammons, Jr., Fayetteville
A. Elizabeth Keever, Fayetteville
Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Fayetteville
Andrew R. Dempster, Fayetteville
13 D. Jack Hooks, Jr., Whiteville
Jerry A. Jolly, Tabor City
David G. Wall, Elizabethtown
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Jr., Bolivia
14 Kenneth C. Titus, Durham
Richard Chaney, Durham
William Y. Manson, Durham
Carolyn D. Johnson, Durham
David Q. LaBarre, Durham
15A James K. Washburn, Burlington
Spencer B. Ennis, Burlington
Ernest J. Harviel, Burlington
15B Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill
Lowry M. Betts, Pittsboro
Stanley S. Peele, Chapel Hill
16A Warren L. Pate, Raeford
William C. Mcllwain, III, Wagram
16B Charles G. McLean, Lumberton
Robert F. Floyd, Jr., Fairmont
J. Stanley Carmical, Lumberton
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton
Gary L. Locklear, Pembroke
*The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first.
37
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1991)
District
17A Robert R. Blackwell, Yanceyville
Philip W. Allen, Yanceyville
Janeice B. Tindal. Reidsville
17B Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy
Clarence W. Carter, King
Otis M. Oliver, Mount Airy
18 J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro
Sherry F. Alloway, Greensboro
Donald L. Boone, High Point
William L. Daisy, Greensboro
Edmund Lowe, High Point
Lawrence C. McSwain, Greensboro
Lhomas G. Foster, Jr., Greensboro
William A. Vaden, Greensboro
Joseph E. Turner, Greensboro
Ben D. Haines, Greensboro
19A Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord
Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis
19B William M. Neely, Asheboro
Richard M. Toomes, Asheboro
Vance B. Long, Asheboro
19C Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury
Anna Mills Wagoner, Salisbury
20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro
Michael E. Beale, Pinehurst
Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle
Kenneth W. Honeycutt, Monroe
Tanya T. Wallace, Rockingham
Susan C. Taylor, Albemarle
21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem
Loretta C. Biggs, Kernersville
James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem
Roland H. Hayes, Winston-Salem
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem
William B. Reingold, Winston-Salem
Margaret L. Sharpe, Winston-Salem
22 Robert W. Johnson, Statesville
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville
George T. Fuller, Lexington
Kimberly T. Harbinson, Taylorsville
James M. Honeycutt, Lexington
Jessie A. Conley, Statesville
23 Samuel L. Osborne, Wilkesboro
Edgar B. Gregory, Wilkesboro
Michael E. Helms, Wilkesboro
District
24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland
R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk
25 L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory
Ronald E. Bogle, Hickory
Robert E. Hodges, Morganton
Jonathan L. Jones, Valdese
Timothy S. Kincaid, Newton
Nancy L. Einstein, Lenoir
Robert M. Brady, Lenoir
26 James E. Lanning, Charlotte
Marilyn R. Bissell, Charlotte
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte
Richard A. Elkins, Charlotte
H. Brent McKnight, Charlotte
Resa L. Harris, Charlotte
Jane V. Harper, Charlotte
William G. Jones, Charlotte
H. William Constangy, Jr., Charlotte
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte
Richard D. Boner, Charlotte
Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte
27A Larry B. Langson, Gastonia
Daniel J. Walton, Gastonia
Harley B. Gaston, Jr., Belmont
Timothy L. Patti, Gastonia
Catherine C. Stevens, Gastonia
27B George W. Hamrick, Shelby
James T. Bowen, III, Lincolnton
J. Keaton Fonvielle, Shelby
James W. Morgan, Shelby
28 Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden
Gary S. Cash, Fletcher
Rebecca B. Knight, Asheville
Peter L. Roda, Asheville
Shirley H. Brown, Asheville
29 Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville
Steven F. Franks, Hendersonville
Robert S. Cilley, Brevard
Donald F. Coats, Marion
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.
38
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES
The Association of District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1991)
L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory, President
Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill, Vice-President
Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy, Secretary-Treasurer
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston
Warren L. Pate, Raeford
A. Elizabeth Keever, Fayetteville
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City
Lawrence C. McSwain, Greensboro
L. Stanly Brown, Charlotte
Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Fayetteville
Additional Executive Committee Members
Judge L. Oliver Noble
39
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
179 district court judges serving in 37 district court
districts during 1990-9 1 . These judges are elected to four-year
terms by the voters of their respective districts.
A total of 659 magistrate positions were authorized as
of June 30. 1991. Of this number, about 60 positions
were specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed
by the senior resident superior court judge from nomina-tions
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 virtual-ly
all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in
felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary com-mitments
and recommitments to mental health hospitals,
and domestic relations cases. Effective September 1,
1986. the General Assembly decriminalized many minor
traffic offenses. Such offenses, previously charged as
misdemeanors, are now- "infractions," defined as non-criminal
violations of law not punishable by imprison-ment.
The district court division has original jurisdiction
for all infraction cases. The district courts have con-current
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 contro-versy
is SI 0,000 or less. Upon the plaintiffs request, a
civil case in which the amount in controversy is $2,000 or
less, may be designated a "small claims" case and
assigned by the chief district court judge to a magistrate
for hearing. Magistrates are empowered to try worthless
check criminal cases as directed by the chief district
court judge when the value of the check does not exceed
SI,000. In addition, they may accept written appearances,
waivers of trial, and pleas of guilty in certain littering
cases, and in worthless check cases when the amount of
the check is SI,000 or less, the offender has made
restitution, and the offender has fewer than four previous
worthless check convictions. Magistrates may accept
waivers of appearance and pleas of guilty or admissions
of responsibility in misdemeanor or infraction cases
involving traffic, alcohol, boating, hunting and fishing
violation cases, for which a uniform schedule of fines has
been adopted by the Conference of Chief District Court
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 court judge is appointed for each
district court district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court from among the elected judges in the respective
districts. Subject to the Chief Justice's general super-vision,
each chief judge exercises administrative super-vision
and authority over the operation of the district
courts and magistrates in the district. Each chief judge is
responsible for scheduling sessions of district court and
assigning judges, supervising the calendaring of non-criminal
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,
guilty pleas, and admissions of responsibility.
Expenditures
Total expenditures for the operation of the district
courts in 1990-91 amounted to $37,918,302. Included in
this total are the personnel costs of court reporters and
secretaries as well as the personnel costs of the 179
district court judges and 659 magistrates. The 1990-91
total for the district courts is 18.2% of the General Fund
expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial
Department, compared to a 17.4% share of total Judicial
Department expenditures in the 1989-90 fiscal year.
Caseload
During 1990-91 the statewide total number of district
court filings (civil and criminal) decreased by 17,108
cases (0.8%) from the total number reported for 1989-90.
Not including juvenile proceedings and mental health
hospital commitment hearings, 2,253,348 total cases
were filed in 1990-91, compared to 2,270,456 total filings
in 1989-90. This was the first time that total district court
filings have decreased since 1981-82. The overall decrease
is attributable to decreases in criminal motor vehicle,
infraction, and civil magistrate filings. Considering
criminal motor vehicle and infraction cases together,
there was a decrease of 20,623 cases (1.8%) from the
number of such cases filed in 1989-90. Filings of civil
magistrate cases decreased by 13,363 (4.6%) from the
number filed in 1989-90. Criminal non-motor vehicle
case filings increased by 1.2% (6,958 cases) during 1990-
91, and domestic relations case filings increased by
10.6% (8,191 cases), above the numbers of these cases
filed during 1989-90.
40
The District Courts, Continued
The Conference of Chief District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1991)
Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids, President
George W. Hamrick, Shelby, Vice-President
J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro, Secretary-Treasurer
Judge Nicholas Long
41
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
(As of June 30, 1991)
Prosecutorial
District
1 H. P. WILLIAMS, JR., Elizabeth City
2 MITCHELL D. NORTON, Washington
3A THOMAS D. HAIGWOOD, Greenville
3B W. DAVID McFADYEN, JR., New Bern
4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, Jacksonville
5 JERRY L. SPIVEY, Wilmington
6A W. ROBERT CAUDLE, II, Halifax
6B DAVID H. BEARD, JR., Murfreesboro
7 HOWARD S. BONEY, JR., Tarboro
8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro
9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford
10 C. COLON WILLOUGHBY, JR., Raleigh
1
1
THOMAS H. LOCK, Smithfield
12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville
13 REX GORE, Bolivia
14 RONALD L. STEPHENS, Durham
15A STEVE A. BALOG, Graham
15B CARL R. FOX, Pittsboro
16A JEAN E. POWELL, Raeford
Prosecutorial
District
16B JOHN R. TOWNSEND, Lumberton
17A THURMAN B. HAMPTON, Wentworth
17B JAMES L. DELLINGER, JR., Dobson
18 HORACE M. KIMEL, JR., Greensboro
19A WILLIAM D. KENERLY, Concord
19B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro
20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe
21 THOMAS J. KEITH, Winston-Salem
22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington
23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboi
24 JAMES THOMAS RUSHER, Boone
25 ROBERT E. THOMAS, Newton
26 PETER S. GILCHRIST, Charlotte
27A MICHAEL K. LANDS, Gastonia
27B WILLIAM C. YOUNG, Shelby
28 RONALD L. MOORE, Asheville
29 ALAN C. LEONARD, Rutherfordton
30 CHARLES W. HIPPS, Waynesville
42
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
The Conference of District Attorneys
(Executive Committee as of June 30, 1991)
W. David McFadyen, Jr. , President
C. Colon Willoughby, Jr. , President- Elect
Horace M. Kimel, Jr., Vi ce- President
H. P. Williams, Jr.
Ronald L. Stephens
Thomas D. Haigwood
Calvin B. Hamrick
H. W. Zimmerman, Jr.
The District Attorneys Association
(Officers as of June 30, 1991)
W. David McFadyen, Jr., New Bern, President
C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., Raleigh, President- Elect
Horace M. Kimel, Jr., Greensboro, Vice-President
Carolyn Brady, Beaufort, Secretary-Treasurer
District Attorney
W. David McFadyen, Jr.
43
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
The State is divided into 37 prosecutorial districts
which, with two exceptions, correspond to the 37 district
court districts. The counties in District Court District 3
make up two separate prosecutorial districts, Prosecu-torial
Districts 3A and 3B. The counties in District
Court Districts 19A and 19C comprise single Prosecu-torial
District 19A. Prosecutorial Districts are shown on
the map in Part II of this Report. A district attorney is
elected by the voters in each of the 37 districts for four-year
terms.
Duties
The district attorney represents the State in all criminal
actions brought in the superior and district courts in the
district, and is responsible for ensuring that infraction
cases are prosecuted efficiently. In addition to prosecu-torial
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 the district. As of June 30, 1 99 1 , a total of 257
assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 37
prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District
26 (Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff (20
assistants) and the district attorney of three districts
(Districts 6A, 6B, and 16 A) had the smallest staff (two
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 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 at least one victim and witness assistant.
Expenditures
A total of $24,021,147 was expended in 1990-91 for
the 37 district attorney offices. In addition, a total of
SI 10,716 was expended for the District Attorney's Con-ference
and its staff.
1990-91 Caseload
A total of 115,099 criminal cases were filed in the
superior courts during 1990-91, consisting of 73,908
felony cases and 41,191 misdemeanor cases; all but 7,121
of the misdemeanors were appeals from the district
courts. The total number of criminal filings in the
superior courts in 1989-90 was 108,784. The increase of
6,315 cases in 1990-91 represents a 5.8% increase over
the 1989-90 total.
A total of 109,572 criminal cases were disposed of in
the superior courts during 1 990-9 1 . There were 69,8 1 3 felony
dispositions, and 39,759 misdemeanor dispositions. In
1990-91, total criminal case dispositions increased by
9,714 cases (9.7%) over the 99,858 cases disposed of in
1989-90.
The median ages of criminal cases at disposition in the
superior courts during 1990-91 were 96 days for felony
cases and 83 days for misdemeanor cases. In 1989-90, the
median age of felony cases at disposition was 86 days,
and the median age at disposition for misdemeanor cases
was 76 days.
The number of criminal cases disposed of by jury trial
in the superior courts decreased from 3,093 in 1989-90 to
2,959 in 1990-91, a decrease of 4.3%. As in past years, the
proportion of total criminal cases disposed by jury was
small, 3.1% in 1989-90 compared to 2.7% in 1990-91.
However, the relatively small number of cases disposed
by jury requires a great proportion of the superior court
time and resources devoted to handling the criminal
caseload.
In contrast, in 1990-91 a majority (59,605 or 54.4%) of
criminal case dispositions in superior courts were pro-cessed
on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a
trial. This percentage represents a small increase from
the proportion of guilty plea dispositions reported for
1989-90(53.9%).
"Dismissal by district attorney" accounted for a signif-icant
percentage of all criminal case dispositions in
superior courts during 1990-91, a total of 32,625 cases,
or 29.8% of all dispositions. This proportion is compar-able
to that reported for prior years. Many of the
dismissals involved the situation of two or more cases
pending against the same defendant, where the defendant
pleads guilty to some charges and other charges are
dismissed.
The total number of criminal cases filed in the superior
courts during 1990-91 was 5,527 cases greater than the
total number of cases disposed during the year. Conse-quently,
the number of criminal cases pending in superior
court increased from 43,065 at the beginning of the fiscal
year, to a total pending at year's end of 48,592, an
increase of 12.8%.
The median age of felony cases pending in the superior
courts increased from 96 days on June 30, 1990, to 110
days on June 30, 1991. The median age of pending mis-demeanor
cases increased from 93 days on June 30,
1990, to 100 days on June 30, 1991.
In the district courts, 1,755,988 criminal cases and
infractions were filed during 1990-91. This total consisted
of 493,974 criminal motor vehicle cases, 651,728 infrac-tion
cases, and 610,286 criminal non-motor vehicle
cases. A comparison of total filings in 1990-91 with total
filings in 1989-90 (1,769,653) reveals a small decrease
(0.8%) in district court criminal and infraction filings
(13,665 cases). Filings of criminal non-motor vehicle
cases increased by 6,958 cases (1.2%), from 603,328 cases
in 1989-90 to 610,286 cases in 1990-91. Filings of motor
44
The District Attorneys, Continued
vehicle plus infraction cases decreased by 20,623 cases
(1.8%), from 1,166,325 in 1989-90 to 1,145,702 in
1990-91.
Total dispositions of motor vehicle and infraction
cases in the district courts amounted to 1,147,659 cases
during 1990-91 (486,812 motor vehicle dispositions and
660,847 infraction dispositions). As in prior years, a sub-stantial
portion of such cases are disposed by waiver of
appearance and entry of pleas of guilty (or "responsibil-ity"
in infraction cases) before a clerk or magistrate.
During 1990-91, 485,218 motor vehicle and infraction
cases (42.3%) 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 remaining 662,441 infraction and motor vehicle
cases (271,786 infraction and 390,655 motor vehicle
cases) were disposed by means other than waiver. This
balance was 29,154 cases (or 4.6%) more than the
633,287 non-waiver motor vehicle and infraction dispo-sitions
in 1989-90.
With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case
dispositions, 605,286 such cases were disposed of in
district courts in 1990-91. 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. A total of 210,370 cases, or
34.8% of the dispositions were by guilty pleas. An addi-tional
1 80,6 1 8 cases, or 29.8% of the total were disposed
of by prosecutor dismissal. The remaining cases were
disposed of by waiver (10.1%), trial (6.8%), as a felony
probable cause matter (10.8%), or by other means
(7.7%).
During 1990-91, the median age at disposition of
criminal non-motor vehicle cases was 34 days, about the
same as the median age at disposition for these cases in
1989-90, 33 days.
During 1990-91, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle
cases in the district courts exceeded dispositions by 5,000
cases. The number of non-motor vehicle criminal cases
pending at year's end was 1 3 1 ,9 1 8, compared with a total
of 126,918 that were pending at the beginning of the
year, an increase of 3.9% in the number of pending cases.
The median age for pending non-motor vehicle cases was
65 days on June 30, 1991, the same as on June 30, 1990.
Additional information on the criminal caseloads in
superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this
Report.
45
CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT
(As of June 30, 1991)
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 Diana R. Morgan Mecklenburg
Buncombe Robert H. Christy, Jr. Mitchell
Burke Iva C. Rhoney 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 Barbara M. Towery Orange
Chatham Janice Oldham Pamlico
Cherokee Rose Mary Crooke Pasquotank
Chowan Marjorie H. Hollowell Pender
Clay James H. McClure Perquimans
Cleveland Linda C. Thrift Person
Columbus Lacy R. Thompson Pitt
Craven Jean W. Boyd Polk
Cumberland George T. Griffin Randolph
Currituck Sheila R. Doxey Richmond
Dare Betty Mann Robeson
Davidson Martha S. Nicholson Rockingham
Davie Kenneth D. Boger Rowan
Duplin John A. Johnson Rutherford
Durham James Leo Carr Sampson
Edgecombe Carol A. White Scotland
Forsyth Frances P. Storey Stanly
Franklin Ralph S. Knott Stokes
Gaston Betty B. Jenkins Surry
Gates Terry L. Riddick Swain
Graham Vicki L. Teem Transylvania
Granville Mary Ruth C. Nelms Tyrrell
Greene Joyce L. Harrell Union
Guilford Estie C. Bennington Vance
Halifax Ellen C. Neathery Wake
Harnett Georgia Lee Brown Warren
Haywood William G. Henry Washington
Henderson Thomas H. Thompson Watauga
Hertford Shirley G. Johnson Wayne
Hoke Juanita Edmund Wilkes
Hyde Lenora R. Bright Wilson
Iredell Betty J. Baity Yadkin
Jackson Frank Watson, Jr. Yancey
CLERK OF COURT
Will R. Crocker
Ronald H. Metts
Lucille H. York
Claude C. Davis
Pamela C. Huskey
Anna I. Carson
James W. Cody
Phyllis G. Pearson
Ruth B. Williams
Martha H. Curran
Linda D. Woody
Charles M. Johnson
Rachel H. Comer
Rachel M. Joyner
Brenda A. Haraldson
David C. Bridgers
Edward T. Cole, Sr.
Shirley L. James
Mary Jo Potter
Frances W. Thompson
Frances D. Basden
Lois G. Godwin
W. Thomas Humphries
Sandra Gaskins
Judy P. Arledge
Lynda B. Skeen
Catherine S. Wilson
Dixie I. Barrington
Frankie C. Williams
Edward P. Norvell
Keith H. Melton
Charlie T. McCullen
C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr.
David R. Fisher
William F. Southern, Jr.
Patricia C. Todd
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
John L. Whitley
Harold J. Long
F. Warren Hughes
46
THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT
Association of Clerks of Superior Court
(Officers as of June 30, 1991)
Judy P. Arledge, Polk County
President
C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr., Scotland County
First Vice-President
Georgia Lee Brown, Harnett County
Second Vice-President
Thomas H. Thompson, Henderson County
Secretary
Richard E. Hunter, Jr., Warren County
Treasurer
Judy P. Arledge
47
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
counties. The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide
special proceedings and is, ex officio, judge of probate,
in addition to performing record-keeping and adminis-trative
functions for both the superior and district courts
of the county.
Jurisdiction
The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court
includes the probate of wills and administration of
decedents' estates. It also includes such "special proceed-ings"
as adoptions, condemnations of private property
under the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings
to establish boundaries, foreclosures, and certain pro-ceedings
to administer the estates of minors and incom-petent
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 the county. For
certain offenses and infractions, the clerk is authorized
to accept defendants' waivers of appearance and pleas of
guilty or admissions of responsibility and to impose
penalties or fines in accordance with a schedule estab-lished
by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges.
Administration
The clerk of superior court performs administrative
duties for both the superior and district courts of the
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 Adminis-trative
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
calendaring is vested in the State's senior resident super-ior
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 administrators.
Expenditures
A total of $63,509,953 was expended in 1990-91 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. Total expenditures
for clerk's offices in 1990-91 amounted to 30.5% of the
General Fund expenditures for the operations of the
entire Judicial Department.
1990-91 Caseload
During 1990-91, estate case filings totaled 46,735,
which was a slight decrease (0.2%) from the 46,832 estate
cases filed in 1989-90. Estate case dispositions totaled
45,920 in 1990-91, or 1.3% more than the previous year's
total of 45,330.
A total of 49,689 special proceedings were filed before
the 100 clerks of superior court in 1990-91. This is an
increase of 1,947 cases (4.1%) from the 47,742 filings in
the previous fiscal year. Special proceedings dispositions
totaled 42,783, 9.2% more than the previous year's total
of 39,171.
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 1990-91 year was
135,419 (not including estates and special proceedings),
and the total number of district court filings, not
including juvenile proceedings and mental health hospi-tal
commitment hearings, was 2,253,348.
More detailed information on the estates and special
proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this
Report.
4X
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
July 1,1990- June 30, 1991
As part of the unified judicial system, the N.C. Consti-tution
(Article IV, Section 15) provides for "an adminis-trative
office of the courts to carry out the provisions of
this Article." The General Assembly has established the
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) as the admin-istrative
arm of the Judicial Branch.
The Director of the AOC (also referred to as the
Administrative Officer of the Courts) is appointed by and
serves at the pleasure of the Chief Justice of the North
Carolina Supreme Court. The Director has the duty to
carry out the many functions and responsibilities assigned
by statute to the Director or to the AOC.
The Assistant Director of the AOC is also appointed by
the Chief Justice, and serves as the administrative assistant
to the Chief Justice. The duties of the Assistant Director
include assisting the Chief Justice regarding assignment
of superior court judges, assisting the Supreme Court in
preparing calendars of superior court sessions, and
performing such other duties as may be assigned by the
Chief Justice or the Director of the AOC.
The basic responsibility of the AOC is to maintain an
efficient and effective court system by providing adminis-trative
support statewide for the courts and for court-related
offices. Among the AOC's specific duties are to
establish fiscal policies for and prepare and administer the
budget of the Judicial Branch; prescribe uniform admin-istrative
and business methods, forms, and records to be
used by the clerks of superior court statewide; procure
and distribute equipment, books, forms, and supplies for
the court system; collect, compile, and publish statistical
data and other information on the judicial and financial
operations of the courts and related offices; determine the
state of the dockets, evaluate the practices and procedures
of the courts, and make recommendations for improve-ment
of the operations of the court system; investigate,
make recommendations concerning, and provide assist-ance
to county authorities regarding the securing of
adequate physical facilities for the courts; administer the
payroll and other personnel-related needs of all Judicial
Branch employees; carry out administrative duties relat-ing
to programs for representation for indigents; arrange
for the printing and distribution of the published opinions
of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals; and perform
numerous other duties and responsibilities, including
production of this Annual Report.
The AOC is organized into eight divisions plus an
Office of Legal Counsel and an Administrator of special
projects. The operations of the Juvenile Services Division,
relating to juvenile probation and aftercare, and the
Office of Guardian ad Litem Services, relating to provi-sion
of guardians ad litem for juveniles, are summarized
on following pages of this Report.
The Office of Legal Counsel advises and assists the
Director of the AOC with contractual and other legal
matters affecting the AOC and court operations, and with
review of and recommendations concerning legislation
that may impact the courts.
The Court Services Division identifies, develops, imple-ments,
and administers programs and procedures for
supporting the day-to-day administrative operations of
the trial courts in all 100 counties. Court offices and
programs supported by the Court Services Division
include the clerks of superior court, trial court admin-istrators,
court reporters, indigency screeners, and alter-native
dispute resolution programs. Among its other
activities, the Court Services Division has primary
responsibility for the maintenance and distribution of
forms, and develops procedures and provides technical
assistance in such areas as jury management, case calen-daring
and monitoring, facility planning, training pro-grams,
and records management, including the micro-filming
and archiving of records.
The Fiscal Services Division assists the Director of the
AOC with preparation and management of the budget for
the entire Judicial Branch. This Division's responsibilities
include collecting, processing, and disbursing all Judicial
Branch funds, including court costs and fees, indigents'
attorney fee payments and judgments, and sales of equip-ment
and publications; processing the payrolls of all
Judicial Branch employees; and developing and imple-menting
accounting and auditing systems.
The Information Services Division (ISD) plans for,
budgets for, and administers the> information processing
needs of the Judicial Branch. Its organizational mission is
to provide comprehensive data processing, communica-tions,
and decision support to the court system statewide.
ISD operates the AOC's Raleigh-based mainframe com-puter
and develops and maintains the automated Court
Information System (CIS). The CIS consists of computer-based
systems that assist the trial courts in high-volume
work areas, including civil indexing, criminal and infrac-tion
case processing, child support enforcement, cash
receipting, and financial management. A rapidly growing
part of automation improvement efforts is that of data-sharing
across governmental agencies, including the
Division of Criminal Information, State Highway Patrol,
and Division of Motor Vehicles. Other ISD services
include operating a 24-hour help desk, developing soft-ware,
configuring and integrating local area networks and
microcomputer workstations, operating data circuit and
voice/ telephone networks, and providing systems main-tenance
statewide. ISD also maintains the AOC's Statis-tical
Reporting System, using statistics from the CIS to
prepare and distribute periodic and special case manage-ment
reports to court officials, including the case data
reported in this Annual Report.
The Personnel Division administers the salary, benefits,
and other personnel-related affairs of the Judicial Branch,
49
The Administrative Office of the Courts, Continued
makes recommendations to the Director of the AOC
concerning the pay scales and classification of employees,
conducts or arranges for training of the AOC employees
and managers, and carries out numerous other duties to
enhance the recruitment, retention, productivity, and
satisfaction of the AOC and other Judicial Branch
employees.
The Purchasing Services Division procures all equip-ment,
supplies, law books, publications, printing, binding,
and contractual and other services for the Judicial
Branch. The responsibilities of the Purchasing Services
Division include oversight of the competitive bidding
system in coordination with the Department of Adminis-tration,
administration of Judicial Branch mail and
telecommunication services, management of the AOC
print shop, maintenance of the AOC fixed asset system,
and contracting for and handling of services for equip-ment
maintenance.
The Research and Planning Division evaluates the
practices, procedures, operations, and organization of the
court system, and makes recommendations to the Direc-tor
of the AOC regarding how the court system might best
respond to present and future needs. On request of the
AOC Director, the Research and Planning Division eval-uates
the impact of proposed legislation or other propo-sals
that may impact court operations, provides assistance
and oversight for the production of AOC publications,
and provides assistance to the counties in the evaluation
of and planning for adequate physical facilities. The
Research and Planning Division also provides support
for the AOC-wide preparation and administration of
grants.
The Special Projects Administrator, in coordination
with other AOC divisions, develops, implements and
manages special studies or projects in diverse areas of
court operations, as requested by the Director of the
AOC.
A total of $1 1,207,704 was expended for AOC opera-tions
during 1990-91, representing 5.4% of total Judicial
Branch expenditures. Of the total $11,207,704, 46.2%
($5,178,352) was expended for the purchase and opera-tion
of computer equipment, management of automated
systems, and operating expenses of the Information
Services Division. The remaining 53.8% ($6,029,352) of
total AOC expenditures was for other AOC operations,
including a total of $429,634 for operation of the AOC
warehouse and print shop.
Administrative Office of the Courts
(As of June 30, 1991)
Franklin Freeman, Jr., Director
Dallas A. Cameron, Jr., Assistant Director
W. Robert Atkinson, Assistant to the Director
Diane Divine, Executive Assistant
Division Administrators:
Thomas J. Andrews, Counsel
Daniel Becker, Court Services
Christopher A. Marks, Fiscal Services
Ilene Nelson, Guardian ad Litem Services
Francis J. Taillefer, Information Services
Thomas A. Danek, Juvenile Services
Ivan Hill, Personnel Services
Douglas Pearson, Purchasing Services
Rick Kane and LeAnn Wallace, Research and
Planning
John Taylor, Special Projects
Franklin Freeman, Jr.
50
JUVENILE SERVICES DIVISION
The Juvenile Services Division of the Administrative
Office of the Courts provides intake, probation and
aftercare services to juveniles who are before the District
Courts for delinquent matters, i.e., violations of the
criminal 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 deter-mine
whether petitions should be filed. During the 1990-
91 fiscal year a total of 33,161 complaints were brought
to the attention of intake counselors. Of this number,
22,921 (69%) were approved for filing, and 10,240(31%)
were not approved for filing.
Probation and aftercare refer to supervision of chil-dren
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; this service is com-bined
with probation and aftercare.)
In 1990-91 a total of 14,433 juveniles were supervised
in the probation and aftercare program.
Expenditures
The Juvenile Services Division is State-funded. The
expenditures for fiscal year 1990-91 totaled $14,507,797.
The 1990-91 expenditures amounted to 7.0% of all
General Fund expenditures for the operation of the
entire Judicial Department, compared to 6.5% in
1989-90.
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
Services Division, with the approval of the Chief District
Court Judge and the Administrative Officer of the
Courts. Subject to the Administrator's general super-vision,
each chief court counselor exercises administra-tive
supervision over the operation of the court coun-seling
services in the respective districts.
Juvenile Services Division Staff
(As of June 30, 1991)
Thomas A. Danek, Administrator
Nancy C. Patteson, Area Administrator
Edward F. Taylor, Area Administrator
John T. Wilson, Area Administrator
Rex B. Yates, Area Administrator
M. Harold Rogerson, Jr., Program Specialist
Arlene J. Kincaid, Administrative Officer
51
JUVENILE SERVICES DIVISION
(As of June 30, 1991)
District Court
District Chief Court Counselors
District Court
District Chief Court Counselors
1 Donald Alexander
: Joseph A. Paul
3 Everlena C. Rogers
4 George Ashley
5 Phyllis Roebuck
6A John R. Brady
bB Archie Snipes
7 Pamela Honeycutt
s Lynn C. Sasser
9 Sherman Wilson
10 Larry C. Dix
11 Henry C. Cox
12 Phil T. Utley
13 Jimmy E. Godwin
14 (vacant)
15A Harry L. Derr
15B Donald Hargrove
16A Alfred Bridges
16B Carey Collins
17A Charles Barton
17B Jack H. Moore, Jr.
18 J. Manley Dodson
19A Verne Brady
and 19C James C. Queen
20 Jimmy L. Craig
21 James J. Weakland
22 Carl T. Duncan
23 C. Wayne Dixon
24 K. Wayne Arnold
25 Lee Cox
26 James A. Yancey
27A Charles Reeves
27B Gloria Newman
28 Louis Parrish
29 Kenneth E. Lanning
30 Betty G. Alley
NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF
COURT COUNSELORS
(Officers for 1990-91)
Executive Committee Members
Richard Alligood, President
E. Blake Belcher, President- Elect
Marilynn Sproull, Secretary
Karen Jones, Treasurer
Donald Hargrove, Parliamentarian
Board Members
1988-91
Kathy Dudley
Martha Lauten
Wayne Arnold
1989-92
Joan Blanchard
Ken Cooke
Donald Roberts
1990-93
Randall Graham
Karen McDonald
Timothy Montgomery
Richard Alligood
52
OFFICE OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM SERVICES
Program Services
When a petition alleging abuse or neglect of a juvenile
is filed in district court, the judge appoints a trained
volunteer guardian ad litem and an attorney advocate to
work together to represent the child's best interests. The
attorney protects the child's legal rights while ensuring
that the volunteer guardian has appropriate access to the
court process. The trained volunteer investigates the
child's situation and works with the attorney to report
the child's needs to the court and to make recommen-dations
for case disposition and any necessary continuing
supervision until court intervention is no longer required.
During 1990-91, a total of 1,817 volunteers were active in
the North Carolina program and represented a total of
10,387 abused and neglected children. These volunteers
participated in 13,660 court hearings and gave approxi-mately
167,700 volunteer hours to casework and training
in the State's guardian ad litem program.
Expenditures
During 1990-91, total expenditures for the guardian
ad litem program amounted to $2,848,147. Of this
amount, $847,823 was for program attorney fees and
$2,000,324 was for program administration. The total
included reimbursement of volunteers' expense of $93,896
(covering 138,060 casework hours for 10,387 abused and
neglected children). In 1989-90, there were 1,511 volun-teers
representing 8,161 children and providing 119,871
casework hours with reimbursement expenses of $98,810.
Committee to work with the Administrator, who is
responsible for planning and directing the guardian ad
litem services program throughout the State.
The Administrator is assisted by three regional admin-istrators,
each of whom supervises the development and
implementation of services for a group of districts,
directing the local program, providing assistance in
training programs for volunteers, and resolving opera-tional
problems in the districts.
A district administrator is employed for 32 of the
State's 37 district court districts to recruit, screen, train
and supervise volunteers. District administrators contact
community groups, local agencies, the courts, and the
media in order to develop volunteer participation, solicit
support from key officials, provide public education
about the program, and cultivate services for children.
The district administrators plan an ini