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

              CA
^^artlf (Kartrltmt (Kxmrts
1969-90
.,.,
N.C. DOCUMENTS
CLEARINGHOUSE
JVnnual Report JUN 14 1991
of i\\t
N.C. STATE LIBRARY
RALEIGH
JVomtmstrattOe (Biixtt of i\\t (ttourts
The Cover: The Pender County Courthouse in Burgaw, North Carolina was dedicated
in 1937. The three-story, brick-veneered Georgian Revival building features a hipped
roofed main block flanked by projecting gable-roofed wings, and Flemish bond brick
enlivened by contrasting masonry trim. The courthouse square in the heart of Burgaw
is beautifully landscaped around mature oaks that dot the lawns. In 1989, the Pender
County Courthouse was renovated and modernized. Pender County was created in
1875 with Burgaw (then called Stanford) as its seat, and was named for General
William Pender of the Confederate States Army.
NORTH CAROLINA COURTS
1989-90
ANNUAL REPORT
of the
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
JUSTICE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
The Honorable James G. Exum, Jr., Chief Justice
The Supreme Court of North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Chief Justice:
In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes, I herewith transmit the
Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1
,
1989 — June 30, 1990.
Fiscal year 1989-90 marks the sixth consecutive year with significant increases in filings and dispositions
in both the Superior and District Courts. During 1989-90, as compared to 1988-89, total case filings
increased by 8.5% in Superior Court and by 3.0% in District Court; dispositions increased by 5.8% in
Superior Court and by 3.6% in District Court. Because total filings were greater than total dispositions,
more cases were pending at the end of the fiscal year than were pending at the beginning.
Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, and
writing required to produce this Annual Report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, principal
responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Information Services Division.
The principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of the clerks of
superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of the State. The Clerk of the Supreme Court
and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals provided the case data relating to our appellate courts.
Without the responsible work of many persons across the State this report would not have been possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Freeman, Jr.
Director
April 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Parti
The 1989-90 Judicial Year in Review
The 1989-90 Judicial Year in Review 1
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations in 1989-90
Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 7
The Present Court System 10
Organization and Operations
The Supreme Court 14
The Court of Appeals 25
Map of Judicial Divisions and Superior Court Districts 29
Map of District Court Districts 30
Map of Prosecutorial Districts 31
The Superior Courts 32
The District Courts 35
District Attorneys 40
Clerks of Superior Court 44
The Administrative Office of the Courts 47
Juvenile Services Division 49
Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services 51
Public Defenders 53
Appellate Defender 55
The North Carolina Courts Commission 56
The Judicial Standards Commission 58
Part III
Court Resources in 1989-90
Judicial Department Finances
Appropriations 63
Expenditures 66
Receipts 68
Distribution of Receipts 69
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 72
Judicial Department Personnel 80
Part IV
Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1989-90
Trial Courts Case Data 83
Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 87
District Court Division Caseflow Data 179
Tables, Charts and Graphs
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations in 1989-90
Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the
Present Court System 10
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina
Trial Courts 13
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 14
Supreme Court, Caseload Inventory 16
Supreme Court, Appeals Filed 17
Supreme Court, Petitions Filed 17
Supreme Court, Caseload Types 18
Supreme Court, Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage 19
Supreme Court, Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 19
Supreme Court, Disposition of Appeals 20
Supreme Court, Manner of Disposition of Appeals 21
Supreme Court, Type of Disposition of Petitions 21
Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Disposed of,
1984-85—1989-90 22
Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed,
1984-85—1989-90 23
Supreme Court, Processing Time for Disposed Cases 24
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 25
Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 27
Court of Appeals, Manner of Case Dispositions 27
Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1984-85—1989-90 28
Map of Judicial Divisions and Superior Court Districts 29
Map of District Court Districts 30
Map of Prosecutorial Districts 31
Judges of Superior Court 32
Special, Emergency, and Retired /Recalled Judges of Superior Court 33
District Court Judges 35
District Attorneys 40
Clerks of Superior Court 44
Chief Court Counselors — Juvenile Services Division 50
Guardian Ad Litem Division District Administrators 52
Public Defenders 53
Appellate Defenders 55
The North Carolina Courts Commission 56
The Judicial Standards Commission 58
Part III
Court Resources in 1989-90
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department 63
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department 64
Tables, Charts and Graphs
General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of All
State Agencies and Judicial Department, 1983-84—1989-90 65
General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations 66
Judicial Department Expenditures 67
Judicial Department Receipts 68
Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 69
Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the
Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 70
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 73
State Mental Health Hospital Commitment Hearings 74
Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem Cases and Expenditures 75
Judicial Department Personnel 80
Part IV
Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1989-90
Superior Courts, Caseload Trends 88
Superior Courts, Caseload 89
Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 90
Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Trends 91
Superior Courts, Civil Case Filings By Case-Type 92
Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory, By District and County 93
Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition 98
Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, By District and County 99
Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Pending, By District and County 106
Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Disposed, By District and County Ill
Superior Courts, Caseload Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 116
Superior Courts, Filings and Dispositions For Estates and Special Proceedings,
By District and County 117
Superior Courts, Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases 122
Superior Courts, Criminal Case Filings By Case-Type 123
Superior Courts, Caseload Inventory for Criminal Cases, By District and County 124
Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies 130
Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies, By District and County 131
Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors 139
Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors, By District and County 140
Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Pending, By District and County 148
Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Disposed, By District and County 162
District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 181
District Courts, Caseload Trends 182
District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 183
District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Cases 184
District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Filings By Case-Type 185
District Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory, By District and County 186
District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 191
District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, By District and County 192
District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Pending, By District and County 202
District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Disposed, By District and County 207
District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer Cases Pending,
By District and County 212
in
Tables, Charts and Graphs
District Courts. Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer Cases Disposed,
By District and County 217
District Courts, Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 222
District Courts, Matters Alleged in Juvenile Petitions, By District and County 225
District Courts. Adjudicatory Hearings For Juvenile Matters, By District and County 230
District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Infraction and Criminal Cases 237
District Courts, Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 238
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory, By District and County . .
.
243
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 248
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition,
By District and County 249
District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Pending, By District and County 255
District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Disposed, By District and County 261
District Courts, Infraction Case Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 267
IV
PARTI
THE 1989-1990 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
THE 1989-90 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, 1989, and ended June 30, 1990.
The Workload of the Courts
Case filings in the Supreme Court during 1989-90
totaled 175, compared with 177 filings during 1988-89. A
total of 626 petitions was filed in the Supreme Court,
compared with 447 in 1988-89, and 106 petitions were
allowed, compared with 71 in 1988-89.
For the Court of Appeals for 1989-90, case filings were
1,408 compared with 1,418 for the 1988-89 year. Petitions
filed in 1989-90 totaled 451, compared with 385 during
the 1988-89 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 8.5% to a total of 128,215 in 1989-90, com-pared
with 118,188 in 1988-89. Superior court case
dispositions increased by 5.8% to a total of 1 17,787, com-pared
with 1 1 1,278 in 1988-89. As case filings during the
year exceeded case dispositions, the total number of cases
pending at the end of the year increased by 10,428.
Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital
commitment hearings, the statewide total of district court
filings (civil and criminal) during 1989-90 was 2,270,456,
an increase of 66,713 (3.0%) from 1988-89 filings of
2,203,743 cases. During 1989-90, a total of 669,667
infraction cases was filed along with a total of 496,658
criminal motor vehicle cases, for a combined total of
1,166,325 cases. This combined total is an increase of
20,492 cases (1.8%) above the 1,145,833 cases filed during
1988-89. During 1989-90, filings of criminal non-motor
vehicle cases in the district courts increased by 46,438
(8.3%) to 603,328, compared with 556,890 during 1988-
89. Filings of general civil cases in the district courts
increased by 9.3% and filings of domestic relations cases
increased by 6.9% compared to the numbers of these
cases filed during 1988-89. Filings of civil magistrate
cases decreased by 5.0%, from 308,029 in 1988-89 to
292,572 during 1989-90.
Operations of the superior and district courts are sum-marized
in Part II of this Report, and detailed informa-tion
on the caseloads is presented in Part IV for the 100
counties, and for the judicial and prosecutorial districts.
1990 Legislative Highlights
Legislation enacted by the 1990 Session of the General
Assembly included creation of a new public defender
office, amendments to the guilty plea jurisdiction of
clerks and magistrates, an increase in service of process
fees, appropriations for new positions in the Judicial
Department, and other measures that pertain directly to
court officials and court operations. In addition, the
1990 Session enacted important legislation that pertains
directly to the resources or operations of other state
agencies, but which has significant implications for court
operations. In recent years, there have been particularly
dramatic increases in criminal drug case filings, and
prison crowding has had pervasive impacts throughout
the criminal justice system. The 1990 Legislative High-lights
that follow begin with legislation relating to prison
resources, sentencing, and drugs. While not all of this
legislation directly pertains to Judicial Department
offices, the legislation in these areas appears to respond
to criminal justice issues that at present are of key impor-tance
to the efficient and effective administration of
justice.
Prison Facilities Bonds
The General Assembly authorized the issuance of up
to $75 million in general obligation, "two-thirds" bonds
during fiscal 1990-91, to finance the costs of providing
additional prison facilities (1989 Session Laws, Regular
Session 1990, Chapter 933). The legislation allocates
bond proceeds among nine specific projects, to provide
additional prison bed capacity for 2,036 inmates. ("Two-thirds"
bonds are those which may be issued without
voter referendum, and which do not exceed two-thirds of
the amount by which the State's outstanding indebted-ness
was reduced during the preceding biennium.)
In addition, Chapter 935 provides for issuance of up
to $200 million in State bonds to finance the costs of
State prison and youth services facilities, subject to voter
approval of a referendum. (The bond referendum was
approved by the voters in the November, 1990 election.)
The specific projects to be funded will be determined by
the 1991 or subsequent Sessions of the General Assembly.
Prison Population Stabilization
The General Assembly increased the maximum num-ber
of prisoners that can be housed in the State prison
system before the Parole Commission must reduce the
prison population by granting parole to otherwise eligible
offenders. Chapter 1 of the 1990 Extra Session raised the
prison cap in G.S. 148-4.1 from 17,640 to 18,155, effec-tive
March 28, 1990; to 18,277 effective May 15, 1990;
and to 18,341 effective June 15, 1990. Amendments
enacted during the regular 1990 Session of the 1989
General Assembly (Chapter 933, Sections 10-14), phase
in additional increases in the prison cap, to 18,938,
effective November 1, 1990, and to 20,026, effective June
30, 1991. (The Secretary of Correction has discretion to
advance or delay these effective dates by up to 45 days
based on the availability or lack of prison space.)
Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission
The General Assembly established a 23-member Sen-tencing
and Policy Advisory Commission to evaluate the
State's sentencing laws and policies, and to make recom-mendations
to the General Assembly (Chapter 1076,
THE 1989-90 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
effective Julv 28. 1990, and expiring July 1, 1992, adding
Article 4 to G.S. Chapter 164, G.S. 164-35 et. seq.).
Among the Commission's duties are to classify criminal
offenses on the basis of their severity, to recommend
sentencing structures for use by the sentencing court
when determining the most appropriate sentence, to
conduct a broad assessment of the operation and long-range
needs of the criminal justice and corrections
systems, and to recommend a comprehensive community
corrections strategy for the State. The legislation sets
forth policy objectives and considerations for the Com-mission
to consider in fulfilling its specific tasks, as well
as directions relating to the collection of relevant infor-mation
and data, including development of a "correc-tional
population simulation model" by which to evalu-ate
the impact of possible changes in criminal law or
sentencing laws.
The membership of the Commission consists of offi-cials
from all three branches of government, and includes
representatives of relevant state and local criminal justice
agencies, the bar, and the public. The legislation requires
reports to the 1991 and 1992 Sessions of the General
Assembly.
New and Expanded Drug Offenses
New section G.S. 90-95.4 establishes increased felony
punishments for a person 18 years of age or older who
hires a minor (under age 18) to commit a violation of
G.S. 90-95(a)(l), relating to the sale, manufacture, or
delivery of a controlled substance (Chapter 1081, effec-tive
October 1, 1990). The punishments depend on the
age of the offender, and the type and quantity of
controlled substance involved. The punishment for an
offender age 18 or older, but under age 21, is one class of
felony more severe than the punishment for the crime
that the minor was hired to commit. The punishment for
an offender age 21 or older is two classes of felony more
severe than the crime that the minor was hired to commit.
This legislation also expands the enhanced punish-ments
provided under G.S. 90-95(e), making it a Class E
felony for a person age 18 or older to sell or deliver a
controlled substance to a pregnant woman, or for a
person 21 years of age or older to sell, deliver or manu-facture
a controlled substance, or possess a controlled
substance with intent to sell, deliver or manufacture, on
or within 300 feet of an elementary or secondary school.
Amendments to G.S. 90-95 make it a Class H felony
to possess certain immediate "precursor" chemicals with
the intent to manufacture a controlled substance, or to
possess or distribute such chemicals with knowledge or
reasonable cause to believe that the chemicals will be so
used (Chapter 1039, Section 5, effective October 1,
1990).
Chapter 1040, effective July 27, 1990, amends several
sections of G.S. Chapter 90, adding certain opiates,
hallucinogens, and other drugs to the schedules of
controlled substances.
Investigative Grand Juries Extended
Authorization for investigative grand juries in drug
trafficking cases was extended for two years, to October
1, 1993 (Chapter 1039, Section 4). These special grand
juries may be convened under the procedures of G.S.
15A-622(h) to investigate alleged drug trafficking con-spiracies.
Increased Penalty for Habitual DWI Offenders
New section G.S. 20-138.5 increases the penalty for
multiple impaired driving convictions (Chapter 1039,
Sections 6 and 7, effective October 1, 1990). A person
who drives while impaired, having been convicted within
the previous seven years of three or more impaired
driving offenses defined under G.S. 20-4.01(24a), com-mits
the offense of habitual impaired driving. In addition
to permanent license revocation, the offense is punish-able
as a Class J felony with a minimum sentence of one
year that cannot be suspended.
Expanded House Arrest
Effective October 1, 1990, Chapter 1031 makes house
arrest an available punishment option for the first two of
the five punishment levels for driving while impaired.
Under the amendments to G.S. 20-1 79(g) and (h), the
judge may impose a shorter mandatory minimum term
of imprisonment, of no less than four (rather than 14)
days for Level One and no less than two (rather than
seven) days for Level Two, combined with house arrest
for twice the number of days by which the imprisonment
was reduced.
This legislation also authorizes the Parole Commission
to impose house arrest on certain misdemeanor offenders
as a condition of parole under G.S. 15A-1372(d) (effec-tive
July 27, 1990).
"IMPACT" Probation for Certain Youthful Offenders
New subparagraph G.S. 15A-1343(bl)(2a) will provide
judges with a new sentencing option that may be imposed
on youthful offenders (Chapter 1010, effective January 1,
1991). An eligible youthful offender may be required to
submit to between 90 and 120 days of imprisonment in a
facility for youthful offenders, and abide by the rules of
the Intensive Motivational Program of Alternative
Correctional Treatment (IMPACT). This "boot camp"
program is intended to provide alternatives to long-term
incarceration of youthful first offenders, by providing an
atmosphere for learning personal responsibility, respect,
and confidence. Eligible offenders are those between 16
and 25 years of age who stand convicted of an offense
punishable by imprisonment for one year or more, who
did not previously serve an active sentence in excess of
120 days, and who are certified by a medical evaluation
to be fit for the Program.
THE 1989-90 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
Felony Possession of Child Pornography
New section G.S. 14-190. 17A makes it a Class J
felony, called third degree sexual exploitation of a
minor, to knowingly possess material that contains a
visual representation of a minor engaging in sexual
activity (Chapter 1022). Mistake of age is no defense.
Compensation of Crime Victims
Under G.S. 15B-1 1(a)(2), a crime victim may receive
compensation from the Victims Compensation Fund for
economic loss only if the loss is incurred within one year
from the date of the criminal conduct that caused the
loss. Amendments to this section extend this one year
period to two years for crime victims who were ten years
of age or less when injured by criminal conduct (Chapter
898, effective July 12, 1990, and applying to conduct
occurring on or after July 12, 1988).
In a measure designed to comply with federal funding
eligibility requirements, amendments to G.S. 15B-
11(a)(4) remove a prohibition against family or house-hold
members of an offender from recovering from the
Victims Compensation Fund (Chapter 1066, Section
131, effective July 1, 1990).
New Public Defender District 14
The General Assembly established new Public De-fender
District 14, to serve Durham County (Chapter
1066, Section 127, effective July 1, 1990). The new Public
Defender will be appointed by the Senior Resident
Superior Court Judge of the set of districts that comprise
Durham County, from a list of three to five nominees
submitted by licensed attorneys resident in the defender
district.
Special Capital Case Rehearing Fund
The General Assembly appropriated $500,000 for
fiscal 1990-91 to a special reserve for payment of indi-gents'
attorney fees and related expenses associated with
capital case resentencing proceedings that are required
by the March 5, 1990, McKoy v North Carolina decision
of the United States Supreme Court, and resulting deci-sions
of the North Carolina Supreme Court (Chapter
1066, Section 123). The U.S. Supreme Court held certain
North Carolina capital case sentencing procedures un-constitutional,
requiring resentencing of many of the 83
inmates who were on death row at the time of the
decision.
Confidentiality of Judicial Standards Proceedings
Amendments to G.S. 7A-377(a) narrow the confiden-tiality
of proceedings before the Judicial Standards
Commission, relating to allegations of judicial miscon-duct.
Under present law, unless waived by the judge, all
papers and proceedings are confidential, except the final
recommendations and the supporting record that the
Commission files with the Supreme Court. Effective
October 1, 1990, if following its preliminary investigation
the Commission concludes that formal proceedings
should be instituted, the complaint, answer, and other
pleadings, as well as formal hearings, will not be confi-dential
(Chapter 995, Section 2).
Guilty Plea Jurisdiction of Clerks and Magistrates
The authority of magistrates to accept guilty pleas and
enter judgment in littering cases was clarified to specify
that it only applies to the relatively less serious littering
violations specifically charged under subsection G.S. 14-
399(c) (Chapter 1041, amending G.S. 7A-273(9), effective
July 27, 1990). A law enacted in 1989 had inadvertently
extended such magistrate jurisdiction to more serious
littering violations under subsections G.S. 14-399(d) and
(e).
In addition, new subsection G.S. 7A-180(9) grants
Clerks of Superior Court the jurisdiction to accept guilty
pleas and enter judgments in littering offenses charged
under G.S. 14-399(c).
Extend Certain Special Superior Court Judge Term
The term of any sitting special superior court judge
who was appointed or elected in calendar year 1986 was
extended through December 31, 1994 (Chapter 1066,
Section 124). The effect of this legislation is to extend the
term of one special superior court judge.
Increased Service of Process Fees
Effective October 1, 1990, the fee for service of process
in criminal and civil cases is increased from $4.00 to
$5.00 (Chapter 1044, amending G.S. 7A-304(a)(l) and
G.S. 7A-31 1(a)(1)). Service of process fees are remitted
to the counties or, in criminal cases, to a municipality
that may have employed the law enforcement officer
who served the process.
Salaries
Funds were appropriated for a 6% pay raise for all
officials and employees of the Judicial Department.
New Positions
The 1990 Session of the General Assembly appro-priated
or authorized the use of funds for the following
new positions during fiscal 1990-91 (effective April 1,
1991, unless otherwise stated): six superior court judges
and conversion of two special superior court judges to
resident judges, assigned to Districts 3 A, 5, 11, 13, 17A,
20A, 25 A, and 29, effective January 1, 1991; 15 district
court judges, one effective July 1, 1990, for District 9 and
the other 14 effective December 3, 1990, for Districts 4,
THE 1989-90 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
5. '. 10. 11. 12. 17B. 18. 20. 22. 25. 26. 27B and 28; six
court reporters for superior courts; two administrative
secretaries for superior court judges; five magistrates, to
be allocated in accordance with G.S. 7A-171; two admin-istrative
assistants for Trial Court Administrators; eight
assistant district attorneys, for Districts 1, 8, 9, 13, 14,
17B. 2 7 B. and 30; five secretaries for district attorney
offices; two victim witness assistants; 18 deputy clerks; 7
juvenile court counselors and five secretaries for court
counselors; three guardian ad litem coordinators; one
arbitration coordinator; and one paralegal plus one
secretary for public defenders. The judicial department
was also authorized to use up to $759,292 from the
Indigent Persons Attorney Fee Fund to establish a
public defender office in District 14 (Durham County),
effective July 1, 1991.
Total Appropriations
The 1990 Session of the General Assembly appropri-ated
a total of $204,517,000 to the Judicial Department
for the 1990-91 fiscal year.
PART II
COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION
AND OPERATIONS
• Historical Development of Court System
• Present Court System
• Organization and Operations in 1989-90
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 1 767 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 court which continued in use from about 1670 to
1868 — were still held by the assembled justices of the
peace in each county. The justices were appointed by the
governor on the recommendation of the General 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, conflicting judge
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 1 805 and authorized to hear appeals in
1810. Because of the influence of the English legal system,
however, there was still no conception of an alternative to
judges sitting together to hear appeals from cases which
they had 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 1965, the Constitution was amended to provide for the
creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It was
amended again in 1 972 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.
Historical Development Of The North Carolina Court Systems, 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.
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal
Recommendations
from Judicial
Standards Commission
SUPREME
COURT
7 Justices
Original Jurisdiction >
All felony cases; civil |
cases in excess of ,
SI 0.000* >/
Decisions of
Most Administrative
Agencies
SUPERIOR
COURTS
77 Judges
1 Final Order of
I
Utilities Commission in '
General Rate Cases
COURT OF
APPEALS
12 Judges
Original Jurisdiction
Probate and estates,
special proceedings
(condemnations,
adoptions, partitions,
foreclosures, etc.)
criminal cases
(for trial de novo)
K(2)
civil cases
DISTRICT
COURTS
164 Judges
Clerks of Superior
Court
(100J
Magistrates
(654)
1
Decisions of Industrial
Commission, State Bar,
Property Tax Commission,
Commissioner of Insurance,
Bd. of State Contract Appeals,
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.
CI) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals.
(2) Asa 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 general 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).
10
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab-lishes
the General Court of Justice which "shall consti-tute
a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction,
operation, and administration, and shall consist of an
Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a
District Court Division."
The Appellate Division 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 illust r _..cu in the chart on the previous page.
Criminal Cases
Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original
jurisdiction of the district courts. Some misdemeanor
offenses are tried by magistrates, who are also em-powered
to accept pleas of guilty and admissions of
responsibility to certain offenses and impose fines in
accordance with a schedule set by the Conference of
Chief District Court Judges. Most trials of misdemean-ors
are by district court judges, who also hold prelimi-nary,
"probable cause" hearings in felony cases. Trial of
felony cases is within the jurisdiction of the superior
courts.
Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the
district court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by
jury available at the district court level; appeal from the
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.
Effective July 1, 1989, the General Assembly, under
G.S. 7A-37.1, authorized statewide expansion of court-ordered,
nonbinding arbitration in 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, 1990,
arbitration programs had been established in nine judi-cial
districts.
The 1989 General Assembly also directed, beginning
July 1, 1989, the phase-in of a statewide child custody
and visitation mediation program (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 not
to, becomes a part of the court's order in the case. Issues
not resolved by the mediation are reported by the media-tor
to the court. As of June 30, 1990, these mediation
programs were operating in three judicial districts.
Administration
The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general
power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of
11
The Present Court System, Continued
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 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.
12
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts
CHIEF JUSTICE
and
SUPREME COURT
Administrative
Office of
the Courts
4i
(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 an 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 in each of the 37 district court districts from the judges
elected in the respective districts.
4The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the
Judicial Department.
5The district attorney sets the criminal case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and
the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their respective
courts.
6In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping
functions for both the superior court and district court of 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.
13
THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
(As of June 30, 1990)
Chief Justice
JAMES G. EXUM, JR.
LOUIS B. MEYER
BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR.
HARRY C. MARTIN
Associate Justices
HENRY E. FRYE
JOHN WEBB
WILLIS P. WHICHARD
Retired Chief Justices
WILLIAM H. BOBBITT
SUSIE SHARP
JOSEPH BRANCH
I. BEVERLY LAKE
J. FRANK HUSKINS
Retired Justices
DAVID M. BRITT
Clerk
J. Gregory Wallace
Librarian
Louise H. Stafford
Chief Justice Exum
14
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
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.
an Assistant Director, who serve at the pleasure of the
Chief Justice. He also designates a Chief Judge from
among the judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief
District Court Judge from among the district 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, 1989-90
Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the
1989-90 fiscal year amounted to $2,531,624. (Expendi-tures
data for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and
benefits) for state employees for June 1990. The June
1990 payroll was disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal
1990-91. As a result, "total" expenditure data for 1989-
90 are not comparable to such data for prior years.)
Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 1989-90
constituted 1.34% of all General Fund expenditures for
the operation of the entire Judicial Department during
the fiscal year.
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
Case Data, 1989-90
A total of 295 appealed cases were before the Supreme
Court during the fiscal year, 120 that were pending on
July 1, 1989, plus 175 cases filed through June 30, 1990.
A total of 141 of these cases were disposed of, leaving
154 cases pending on June 30, 1990.
A total of 681 petitions (requests to appeal) were
before the Court during the 1989-90 year, with 601
disposed during the year and 80 pending as of June 30,
1990. The Court granted 106 petitions for review during
1989-90 compared to 71 for 1988-89.
More detailed data on the Court's workload are
presented on the following pages.
15
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
Supreme Court Caseload Inventory
July 1, 1989-June 30, 1990
Petitions for Review
Civil domestic
Juvenile
Other civil
Criminal
Postconviction remedy
Administrative agency decision
Total Petitions for Review
'ending Pending
7/1/89 Filed Disposed 6/30/90
3 25 27 1
3 3
23 305 270 58
19 191 194 16
9 74 81 2
1 28 26 3
55 626 601 80
Appeals
Civil domestic
Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals
Juvenile
Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals
Other civil
Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment
Other criminal
Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals
Petitions for review granted that became postconviction
remedy cases
Administrative agency decision
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of
administrative agency decision
Total Appeals
Other Proceedings
Rule 16(b) additional issues re dissent
Requests for advisory opinion
Rule amendments
Motions
Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear
Total Other Proceedings
1 4 2 3
1 1
1 1 1 1
15 43 26 32
24 40 35 29
27 17 15 29
24 26 21 29
7 19 17 9
12 13 14 11
6 7 6 7
2 5 3 4
120 175 141 154
17 15 2
56 42 14
226 226
«) 12 12
311 295 16
16
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1989-90
APPEALS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1989 - JUNE 30, 1990
CRIMINAL-DEATH
CRIMINAL LIFE
ADMIN. AGENCY
OTHER CIVIL
0.6% (1) JUVENILE
OTHER CRIMINAL
2.3% (4) DOMESTIC RELATIONS
PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1989 - JUNE 30, 1990
OTHER CIVIL
JUVENILE 0.5% (3)
CRIMINAL
ADMIN. AGENCY 4.5% (28)
DOMESTIC RELATIONS 4.0% (25)
POSTCONVICTION REMEDY
17
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
Supreme Court Caseload Types by Superior Court Division and District
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990
Judicial Superior Court Total Death Life Other Civil Other Cases
Division District Cases Cases Cases Criminal Cases Cases Disposed
I 1 5 3 1 1 1
2 3 2 1 2
3A 8 1 4 3 3
3B 8 8 5
4A 5 2 1 2 1
4B 5 2 1 2 3
5 12 4 2 1 5 4
6A 5 3 1 1 1
6B 5 1 2 1 1 3
7A 3 2 1 1
7B-C 3 2 I 2
8A 3 2 1 2
8B 5 1 2 1 1 3
SUBTOTAL 70 18 14 14 23 1 31
II 9 6 2 1 ! 2 2
10 51 7 2 2 19 21 24
11 6 1 2 2 1 1
12 16 3 6 6 1 11
13 5 1 2 2
14 10 3 1 2 3 I 6
15A 5 1 1 3
15B 5 1 2 2 2
16A 3 2 1 1
16B 8 3 2 3 3
SUBTOTAL 115 23 18 18 34 22 50
III 17A 5 3 1 1 1
17B 3 1 2 2
18 23 2 5 5 11 7
19A 3 1 1 1 2
19B 3 1 1 1 2
19C 4 3 1 2
20A 10 2 1 7 3
20B 2 1 1 1
21 17 3 2 10 2 6
22 9 4 5 6
23 2 1 1 1
SUBTOTAL XI 15 14 10 39 3 33
IV 24 4 1 2 1 2
25 A 7 2 2 3 4
25B 7 3 1 3 4
26 17 2 1 2 10 2 8
27A 3 1 1 1 1
27B 1 1
28 7 2 5 5
29 7 2 2 3 1
30A 2 1 1 1
30 B 2 2 1
SUBTOTAL 57 9 11 9 26 2 27
TOTALS 323 65 57 51 122 28 141
NOTE: Includes life & death sentence cases awaiting Record on Appeal and not yet formally docketed.
18
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage in Supreme Court
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990
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
5
2
76
IK
27
36
12
176
I
I
2
178
Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings by the Supreme Court
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990
Petitions for Review Granted* Denied
Dismissed/
Withdrawn
Total
Disposed
Civil Domestic
Juvenile
Other Civil
Criminal
Postconviction Remedy
Administrative Agency Decision
1
1
58
40
1
5
26
2
210
152
63
21
2
2
17
27
3
270
194
81
26
Total Petitions for Review 106 474 21 601
Other Proceedings
Rule 16(b) — Additional Issues
Advisory Opinion
Rule Amendments
Motions
Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear
15
«»
42
226
12
Total Other Proceedings 295
*"Granted" includes orders allowing relief without accepting the case as a full appeal.
19
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Signed Opinions
Reversed Total
Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed
Civil domestic
Juvenile 1 1
Other civil 13 1 5 14 33
Criminal (death sentence) b 4 3 13
Criminal (life sentence) 19 2 21
Other criminal 5 10 5 20
Postconviction remedy
Administrative agency decision 3 2 5
Totals 46 18 25 93
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 17 2 3 22
Criminal (death sentence) 1 1 2
Criminal (life sentence)
Other criminal 4 1 5
Postconviction remedy
Administrative agency decision 2 2 4
Totals 25 1 35
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals by Dismissal or Withdrawal
Case Types
Dismissed or
Withdrawn
Civil domestic
Juvenile
Other civil
Criminal (death sentence)
Criminal (life sentence)
Other criminal
Postconviction remedy
Administrative agency decision
Totals
I
6
6
13
20
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1989-90
MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF APPEALS IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1989 - JUNE 30, 1990
DISMISSED/ WITHDRAWN
SIGNED OPINIONS
PER CURIAM OPINIONS
TYPE OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1989 - JUNE 30, 1990
DENIED
GRANTED
DISMISSED/ WITHDRAWN
21
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Appeals Docketed and Disposed of During the Years 1984-85—1989-90
400
BAppeals Docketed
Appeals Disposed of
300
\
UM
B
F
R
O
F
C
•\
s
E
S
200
100
220
200
196
216
145
177
154
175
141
1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90
22
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years 1984-85—1989-90
800
N
VM
B
E
R
O
F
C
A
S
E
S
674
99
635
67
n
I Petitions Docketed
Petitions Allowed
447
7!
106
1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90
23
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
Supreme Court Processing Time for Disposed Cases
(Total time in days from docketing to decision)
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990
Civil domestic
Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals
Juvenile
Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals
Other civil
Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment
Other criminal
Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals
Petitions for review granted that became postconviction remedy cases
Administrative agency decision
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative
agency decision
Total appeals
Number
of Cases
(Days)
Median
(Days)
Mean
2 138.0 138.0
1 174 174.0
1 211 211.0
26 223 224.2
35 239 270.7
15 447 472.0
21 363 414.8
17 262 211.1
14 246 287.6
6 233 260.3
3 308 259.7
141 247 295.8
24
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
(As of June 30, 1990)
Chief Judge
R. A. HEDRICK
GERALD ARNOLD
HUGH A. WELLS
CLIFTON E. JOHNSON
EUGENE H. PHILLIPS
SIDNEY S. EAGLES, JR.
SARAH PARKER
Judges
JACK COZORT
ROBERT F. ORR
K. EDWARD GREENE
JOHN B. LEWIS, JR.
ALLYSON K. DUNCAN
FRANK M. PARKER
EDWARD B. CLARK
ROBERT M. MARTIN
Retired Judges
CECIL J. HILL
MAURICE BRASWELL
Clerk
FRANCIS E. DAIL
Assistant Clerk
JOHN H. CONNELL
25
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
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.
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 Board of State Contract
Appeals, the Department of Human Resources, the
Commissioner of Banks, the Administrator of Savings
and Loans, the Governor's Waste Management Board,
the Property Tax Commission, and the Utilities Com-mission
(in cases other than general rate cases). Appeals
from the decisions of other administrative 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, 1989-90
Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during
the 1989-90 fiscal year totalled $3,341,672. (Expenditures
data for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and bene-fits)
for state employees for June 1990. The June 1990
payroll was disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal 1990-
91. As a result, "total" expenditure data for 1989-90 are
not comparable to such data for prior years.) Expendi-tures
for the Court of Appeals during 1989-90 amounted
to 1.8% of all General Fund expenditures for operation
of the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year.
Case Data, 1989-90
A total of 1,408 appealed cases were filed before the
Court of Appeals during the period July 1, 1989 - June
30, 1990. A total of 1,366 cases were disposed of during
the same period. During 1989-90, a total of 451 petitions
and 1,473 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.
26
FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 1989 — June 30, 1990
Cases on Appeal
Civil cases appealed from district courts
Civil cases appealed from superior courts
Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies
Criminal cases appealed from superior courts
Total
Filings
251
562
99
496
1,408
Dispositions
1,366
Petitions
Allowed
Denied
Remanded
Total 451
53
372
6
431
Motions
Allowed
Denied
Remanded
Total
Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions and Motions
855
489
22
1,473 1,366
3,332 3,163
MANNER OF CASE DISPOSITIONS - COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990
Cases Disposed by Written Opinion
Cases
Affirmed
882
Cases
Reversed
247
Cases Affirmed
In Part, Reversed
In Part
92
Other Cases
Disposed
145
Total Cases
Disposed
1,366
27
FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
Fiscal Years 1984-85 Through 1989-90
3000
2500
N
r
M
B
E
R
<)
I
C
\
s
F
s
1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90
Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed cases and petitions (but not motions) filed in the Court of Appeals.
2H
o
^—
>
On
?-H On
3 i—i
oU
O
CO
o
•i-H
5-H
H^
o
e (/J
C3
00 C/3
cd
a
o
e c/)
• tH •l—
r~H > o •i—
Q
<3 u T3
^ in
t5
4—
»
o
o 5-h
•4—
29
t/3
o
CO
° 2
.Ho
$h en
to g
cd o
O
-Si ^ LU
^"jif e^ Q
UJ
S3 __ cc
I >iE
<>
CD o
: 1—
5
,, < =!z < <£ r
30
+-
>
O
is
Ctf
?H o o On
+-
»
o, s ^H
o <0
O
*H
Oh
0)
c3 o
g c/o
i |
c3
o
$-1
<tf U^
tto£
i g v6*
-0>_1
>
ft.
HjO \
31
JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT*
(As of June 30, 1990)
District
3A
:^b
4A
4B
5
6A
^B
7A
^B
7C
8A
SB
I0A
MB
IOC
I0D
FIRST DIVISION
*J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City
Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City
*William C. Griffin, Jr., Williamston
*David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville
* Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City
*Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville
*James R. Strickland, Jacksonville
*Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington
Ernest B. Fullwood, Wilmington
*Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids
*Cy Anthony Grant, Sr., Windsor
*Leon Henderson, Rocky Mount
G. K. Butterfield, Jr., Wilson
*Frank R. Brown, Tarboro
*James D. Llewellyn, Kinston
*Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro
SECOND DIVISION
*Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg
Henry W. Hight, Jr., Henderson
George R. Greene, Raleigh
* Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh
Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh
Howard E. Manning, Jr., Raleigh
Donald W. Stephens, Raleigh
1 1 *Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn
12A *D. B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville
12B Gregory A. Weeks, Fayetteville
12C Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville
E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville
13 *Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown
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
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
19B *Russell G. Walker, Jr., Asheboro
19C Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer
20A *F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro
20B *William H. Helms, Monroe
21
A
James J. Booker, Winston-Salem
21
B
*Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem
21C 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
25B *Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory
26A Raymond A. Warren, Charlotte
Shirley L. Fulton, Charlotte
26B * Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte
Samuel A. Wilson, III, Charlotte
26C Robert M. Burroughs, 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 *Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton
30A *James U. Downs, Franklin
30B *Janet M. Hyatt, Waynesville
'Senior Resident Superior Court Judge of the district or "set of districts'
32
SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT
Marvin K. Gray, Charlotte
I. Beverly Lake, Jr., Raleigh
Samuel T. Currin, Raleigh
EMERGENCY AND RETIRED/RECALLED JUDGES
OF SUPERIOR COURT
Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton
George M. Fountain, Tarboro
James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh
John R. Friday, Lincolnton
D. Marsh McLelland, Graham
Edward K. Washington, High Point
L. Bradford Tillery, Wilmington
Peter W. Hairston, Advance
The Conference of Superior Court Judges
(Executive Committee as of June 30, 1990)
J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City, President
Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown, President-Elect
Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville, Vice-President
E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville, Secretary-Treasurer
Robert D. Lewis, Asheville, Immediate Past- President
Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg, and
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte, Ex Officio
Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro, and
J. Marlene Hyatt, Waynesville,
Additional Executive Committee Members
Judge J. Herbert Small
33
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
The Superior Courts
North Carolina's superior courts are the general juris-diction
trial courts for the state. In 1989-90, there were
~4 "resident" superior court judges elected by Statewide
ballot to office for eight-year terms in the 60 superior
court districts. In addition, three "special" superior court
judges have 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 the Industrial Commission,
certain rulings of the Commissioner of Insurance, the
Board of Examiners of the North Carolina State Bar, the
Board of State Contract Appeals, 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 were grouped into
60 superior court districts as of January 1, 1989. Some
superior court districts comprise one county; some com-prise
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 adminis-trative
responsibilities for his or her home district,
such as providing for civil case calendaring procedures.
(Criminal 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 judicial districts are grouped into four divisions
for the rotation of superior court judges, as shown on the
preceding map. Within the division, resident superior
court judges are required to rotate among the judicial
districts and hold court for at least six months in each,
then move on to their next assignment. A special superior
court judge may be assigned to hold court in any of the
100 counties. Assignments of all superior court judges
are made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Under the Constitution of North Carolina, at least two
sessions (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 $18,012,980 was expended on the operations
of the superior courts during the 1989-90 fiscal year. This
included the salaries and travel expenses for the 77
superior court judges, and salaries and expenses for
court reporters and secretarial staff for superior court
judges. (Expenditures data for 1989-90 do not include
payroll (salary and benefits) for state employees for June
1990. The June 1990 payroll was disbursed in July 1990,
which is fiscal 1990-91. As a result, "total" expenditure
data for 1989-90 are not comparable to such data for
prior years.) The 1989-90 expenditure for the superior
courts amounted to 9.6% of the total General Fund
expenditures for the operations of the entire Judicial
Department during the 1989-90 fiscal year.
Caseload
Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of
128,215 cases were filed in the superior courts during
1989-90, an increase of 10,027 cases (8.5%) from the total
of 118,188 cases that were filed in 1988-89. There were
increases in filings in all case categories: civil cases
(10.4%), felony cases (11.2%), and misdemeanor cases
(3.0%).
Superior court case dispositions increased from
1 1 1,278 in 1988-89 to 1 17,787 in 1989-90. Dispositions of
civil cases and felony cases increased (by 7.7% and 9.4%
respectively), while misdemeanor dispositions decreased
slightly (by 0.6%).
More detailed information on the flow of cases
through the superior courts is included in Part IV of this
Report.
34
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1990)
District
1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City
John R. Parker, Manteo
2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington
Samuel G. Grimes, Washington
James W. Hardison, Williamston
3 E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville
David A. Leech, Greenville
Willie L. Lumpkin, III, Morehead City
James E. Martin, Grifton
James E. Ragan, III, Oriental
H. Horton Rountree, Greenville
Wilton R. Duke, Jr., Greenville
4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill
William M. Cameron, Jr., Jacksonville
Wayne G. Kimble, Jr., Jacksonville
Leonard W. Thagard, Clinton
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville
5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington
Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington
Charles E. Rice, III, Wilmington
Elton Glenn Tucker, Wilmington
John W. Smith, II, Wilmington
6A Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck
6B Robert E. Williford, Lewiston
James D. Riddick, III, Como
7 George Britt, Tarboro
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson
Quentin T. Sumner, Rocky Mount
Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson
Sarah F. Patterson, Rocky Mount
8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston
Kenneth R. Ellis, Goldsboro
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro
Joseph E. Setzer, Jr., Goldsboro
9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford
H. Weldon Lloyd, Jr., Henderson
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton
Charles W. Wilkinson, Jr., Oxford
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
District
1
1
William A. Christian, Sanford
Samuel S. Stephenson, Angier
Edward H. McCormick, Lillington
O. Henry Willis, Jr., Dunn
Tyson Y. Dobson, 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
13 William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville
D. Jack Hooks, Jr., Whiteville
Jerry A. Jolly, Tabor City
David G. Wall, Elizabethtown
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
17A Peter M. McHugh, Wentworth
Robert R. Blackwell, Yanceyville
Philip W. Allen, Yanceyville
17B Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy
Clarence W. Carter, King
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
Thomas G. Foster, Jr., Greensboro
William A. Vaden, Greensboro
Joseph E. Turner, Greensboro
19A Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord
Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis
The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first.
35
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1990)
District
19B William M. Neely, Asheboro
Richard M. Toomes, Asheboro
Vance B. Long, Asheboro
19C Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury
Robert M. Davis, Salisbury
20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro
Michael E. Beale, Pinehurst
Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle
Kenneth W. Honeycutt, Monroe
Tanya T. Wallace, Rockingham
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
William G. Ijames, Jr., Mocksville
23 Samuel L. Osborne, Wilkesboro
Edgar B. Gregory, Wilkesboro
Michael E. Helms, Wilkesboro
24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland
Charles P. Ginn, Boone
R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk
25 L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory
Ronald E. Bogle, Hickory
Robert E. Hodges, Morganton
Jonathan L. Jones, Valdese
Timothy S. Kincaid, Newton
Nancy L. Einstein, Lenoir
District
26
27A
27B
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
Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte
William G. Jones, Charlotte
H. William Constangy, Jr., Charlotte
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte
Richard D. Boner, Charlotte
Larry B. Langson, Gastonia
Daniel J. Walton, Gastonia
Harley B. Gaston, Jr., Belmont
Timothy L. Patti, Gastonia
Catherine C. Stevens, Gastonia
George W. Hamrick, Shelby
James T. Bowen, III, Lincolnton
J. Keaton Fonvielle, Shelby
28 Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden
Gary S. Cash, Fletcher
Robert L. Harrell, Asheville
Peter L. Roda, Asheville
29 Loto G. Caviness, Marion
Stephen F. Franks, Hendersonville
Robert S. Cilley, Brevard
Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville
30 John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy
Steven J. Bryant, Bryson City
Danny E. Davis, Waynesville
*The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first.
36
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES
The Association of District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1990)
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston, President
Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory, Vice-President
Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill, Secretary-Treasurer
E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville
Warren L. Pate, Raeford
Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy
Charles P. Ginn, Boone
W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham
A. Elizabeth Keever, Fayetteville
Additional Executive Committee Members
Judge Rodney R. Goodman
37
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
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
164 district court judges serving in 37 district court
districts during 1989-90. These judges are elected to four-year
terms by the voters of their respective districts.
A total of 654 magistrate positions were authorized as
of June 30. 1990. 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 hospitals, and
domestic relations cases. Effective September 1, 1986,
the General Assembly decriminalized many minor traffic
offenses. Such offenses, previously charged as misde-meanors,
are now "infractions," defined as non-criminal
violations of law not punishable by imprisonment. The
district court division has original jurisdiction for all
infraction cases. The district courts have concurrent
jurisdiction with the superior courts in general civil
cases, but the district courts are the proper courts for the
trial of civil cases where the amount in controversy is
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 crim-inal
cases as directed by the chief district court judge
when the value of the check does not exceed $1,000. 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 appear-ance
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. Magis-trates
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 1989-90 amounted to $32,796,473. (Expendi-tures
data for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and
benefits) for state employees for June 1990. The June
1990 payroll was disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal
1990-91. As a result, "total" expenditure data for 1989-
90 are not comparable to such data for prior years.)
Included in this total are the personnel costs of court
reporters and secretaries as well as the personnel costs of
the 164 district court judges and 654 magistrates. The
1989-90 total is 17.4% of the General Fund expenditures
for the operation of the entire Judicial Department,
compared to an 18.2% share of total Judicial Department
expenditures for the district courts in the 1988-89 fiscal
year.
Caseload
During 1989-90 the statewide total number of district
court filings (civil and criminal) increased by 66,713
cases (3.0%) over the total number reported for 1988-89.
Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital
commitment hearings, a total of 2,270,456 cases were
filed in 1989-90. Civil magistrate filings decreased by
15,457 cases (5.0%), from 308,029 in 1988-89 to 292,572
in 1989-90. Filings of infraction cases also decreased, by
8,522 cases ( 1 .3%), from 678, 1 89 in 1988-89 to 669,667 in
1989-90. There were significant increases in filings of all
other district court case categories. Filings of criminal
non-motor vehicle cases increased by 46,438 cases (8.3%),
filings of civil non-magistrate cases increased by 10,378
cases (8.0%), and filings of criminal motor vehicle cases
increased by 29,014 cases (6.2%).
38
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
The District Courts
The Conference of Chief District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1990)
Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids, President
( Vice-President vacant)
George W. Hamrick, Shelby, Secretary-Treasurer
Judge Nicholas Long
39
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
(As of June 30, 1990)
Prosecutorial
District
1 H. P. WILLIAMS, JR., Elizabeth City
2 MITCHELL D. NORTON, Washington
3A THOMAS D. HAIGWOOD, Greenville
3B WILLIAM D. McFADYEN, New Bern
4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, Jacksonville
5 JERRY L. SPIVEY, Wilmington
6A JIMMIE R. BARNES, 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
JOHN W. TWISDALE, Smithfield
1
2
EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville
1
3
MICHAEL F. EASLEY, 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 HAROLD D. BOWMAN, Dobson
18 HORACE M. KIMEL, JR., Greensboro
19A JAMES E. ROBERTS, Concord
19B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro
20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe
21 W. WARREN SPARROW, Winston-Salem
22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington
23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro
24 JAMES THOMAS RUSHER, Boone
25 ROBERT E. THOMAS, Newton
26 PETER S. GILCHRIST, Charlotte
27A CALVIN B. HAMRICK, Gastonia
27B WILLIAM C. YOUNG, Shelby
28 ROBERT W. FISHER, Asheville
29 ALAN C. LEONARD, Rutherfordton
30 ROY H. PATTON, JR., Waynesville
40
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
The District Attorneys
The Conference of District Attorneys
(Executive Committee as of June 30, 1990)
H. P. Williams, Jr., President
W. David McFadyen, Jr., President-Elect
C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., Vice-President
Ronald L. Stephens
Thomas D. Haigwood
Calvin B. Hamrick
Horace M. Kimel
The District Attorneys Association
(Officers as of June 30, 1990)
H. P. Williams, Jr., Elizabeth City, President
W. David McFadyen, Jr., New Bern, President- Elect
C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., Raleigh, Vice-President
Nancy B. Lamb, Elizabeth City, Secretary- Treasurer
District Attorney
H. P. Williams, Jr.
41
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
The District Attorneys
The State is divided into 37 prosecutorial districts
« hich. \\ ith 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, 1990, a total of 250
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 16A) 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 $21,007,347 was expended in 1989-90 for
the 37 district attorney offices. In addition, a total of
S95.644 was expended for the District Attorney's Con-ference
and its staff. (Expenditures data for 1989-90 do
not include payroll (salary and benefits) for state em-ployees
for June 1990. The June 1990 payroll was
disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal 1990-91. As a
result, "total" expenditure data for 1989-90 are not
comparable to such data for prior years.)
1989-1990 Caseload
A total of 108,784 criminal cases was filed in the
superior courts during 1989-90, consisting of 69,810
felony cases and 38,974 misdemeanor cases; all but 6,087
of the misdemeanors were appeals from the district
courts. The total number of criminal filings in the
superior courts in 1988-89 was 100,587. The increase of
8,197 cases in 1989-90 represents an 8.1% increase over
the 1988-89 total.
A total of 99,858 criminal cases was disposed of in the
superior courts during 1989-90. There were 63,920 felony
dispositions, and 35,938 misdemeanor dispositions. In
1989-90, total criminal case dispositions increased by
5,233 cases (5.5%) over the 94,625 cases disposed of in
1988-89.
The median ages of criminal cases at disposition in the
superior courts during 1989-90 were 86 days for felony
cases and 76 days for misdemeanors. In 1988-89, the
median age of felony cases at disposition was 85 days,
and the median age at disposition for misdemeanor cases
was 72 days.
The number of criminal cases disposed of by jury trial
in the superior courts increased from 2,830 in 1988-89 to
3,093 in 1989-90. As in past years, the proportion of total
criminal cases disposed by jury was small, 3.0% in 1988-
89 and 3.1% in 1989-90. However, the relatively small
number of cases disposed by jury requires a great propor-tion
of the superior court time and resources devoted to
handling the criminal caseload.
In contrast, in 1989-90 a majority (53,833 or 53.9%) of
criminal case dispositions in superior courts were pro-cessed
on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a trial.
This percentage represents a slight decrease from the
proportion of guilty plea dispositions reported for 1988-
89 (54.3%).
"Dismissal by district attorney" accounted for a signif-icant
percentage of all criminal case dispositions during
1989-90, a total of 27,854 cases, or 27.9% of all disposi-tions.
This proportion is comparable 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 cases disposed of in the superior
courts was 8,926 cases less than the total number of cases
filed in 1989-90. Consequently, the number of criminal
cases pending in superior court increased from 35,529 at
the beginning of the fiscal year, to a total pending at
year's end of 44,455, an increase of 25.1%.
The median age of pending felony cases in the superior
courts increased from 91 days on June 30, 1989, to 96
days on June 30, 1990. The median age of pending mis-demeanors
increased from 79 days on June 30, 1989, to
93 days on June 30, 1990.
In the district courts, a total of 1,769,653 criminal
cases and infractions was filed during 1989-90. This total
consisted of 496,658 criminal motor vehicle cases,
669,667 infraction cases, and 603,328 criminal non-motor
vehicle cases. A comparison of total filings in
1989-90 with total filings in 1988-89 (1,702,723) reveals
an increase in district court criminal and infraction
filings of 66,930 cases, or 3.9%. Filings of non-motor
vehicle cases rose by 46,438 cases (8.3%), from 556,890
cases in 1988-89 to 603,328 cases in 1989-90. Filings of
42
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
motor vehicle plus infraction cases increased by 20,492
cases (1.8%), from 1,145,833 in 1988-89 to 1,166,325 in
1989-90.
Total dispositions of motor vehicle and infraction
cases in the district courts amounted to 1,134,277 cases
during 1989-90 (459,612 motor vehicle dispositions and
674,665 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 1989-90, 500,990 (44.2%) of motor vehicle and
infraction cases were disposed by waiver. This substan-tial
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 633,287 infraction and motor vehicle
cases (270,798 infraction and 362,489 motor vehicle
cases) were disposed by means other than waiver. This
balance was 65,203 cases (or 11.5%) more than the
568,084 non-waiver motor vehicle and infraction dispo-sitions
in 1988-89.
With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case dispo-sitions,
a total of 586,438 such cases was disposed of in
district courts in 1989-90. 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 209,549 cases, or
35.7% of the dispositions was by guilty pleas. An addi-tional
166,550 cases, or 28.4% of the total were disposed
of by prosecutor dismissal. The remaining cases were
disposed of by waiver (10.0%), trial (7.1%), as a felony
probable cause matter ( 10.0%), or by other means (8.7%).
During 1989-90, the median age at disposition of non-motor
vehicle criminal cases was 33 days, compared to a
median age at disposition for these cases in 1988-89 of 30
days.
During 1989-90, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle
cases in the district courts exceeded dispositions by
16,890 cases. The number of non-motor vehicle criminal
cases pending at year's end was 130,841, compared with
a total of 1 13,951 that were pending at the beginning of
the year, an increase of 16,890 (14.8%) in the number of
pending cases. The median age for pending non-motor
vehicle cases increased from 58 days on June 30, 1989, to
65 days on June 30, 1990.
Additional information on the criminal caseloads in
superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this
Report.
43
CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT
(As of June 30, 1990)
COUNTY CLERK OF COURT COUNTY CLERK OF COURT
Alamance Louise B. Wilson Johnston Will R. Crocker
Alexander Seth Chapman Jones Ronald H. Metts
Alleghany Rebecca J. Gambill Lee Lucille H. York
Anson R. Frank Hightower Lenoir Claude C. Davis
Ashe Jerry L. Roten Lincoln Pamela C. Huskey
Avery Robert F. Taylor Macon Anna I. Carson
Beaufort Thomas S. Payne, III Madison James W. Cody
Bertie John Tyler Martin Phyllis G. Pearson
Bladen Hilda H. Coleman McDowell Ruth B. Williams
Brunswick Diana R. Morgan Mecklenburg Robert M. Blackburn
Buncombe J. Ray Elingburg Mitchell Linda D. Woody
Burke Major A. Joines Montgomery Charles M. Johnson
Cabarrus Estus B. White Moore Rachel H. Comer
Caldwell Jeanette Turner Nash Rachel M. Joyner
Camden Catherine W. McCoy New Hanover Louise D. Rehder
Carteret Darlene Leonard Northampton R. Jennings White, Jr.
Caswell Janet H. Cobb Onslow Everitte Barbee
Catawba Phyllis B. Hicks Orange Shirley L. James
Chatham Janice Oldham Pamlico Mary Jo Potter
Cherokee Rose Mary Crooke Pasquotank Frances W. Thompson
Chowan Marjorie H. Hollowell Pender Frances D. Basden
Clay James H. McClure Perquimans Lois G. Godwin
Cleveland Ruth S. Dedmon Person W. Thomas Humphries
Columbus Lacy R. Thompson Pitt Sandra Gaskins
Craven Jean W. Boyd Polk Judy P. Arledge
Cumberland George T. Griffin Randolph Lynda B. Skeen
Currituck Sheila R. Doxey Richmond Catherine S. Wilson
Dare Betty Mann Robeson Dixie I. Barrington
Davidson Martha S. Nicholson Rockingham Frankie C. Williams
Davie Delores C. Jordan Rowan Edward P. Norvell
Duplin John A. Johnson Rutherford Keith H. Melton
Durham James Leo Carr Sampson Charlie T. McCullen
Edgecombe Curtis Weaver Scotland C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr
Forsyth Frances P. Storey Stanly David R. Fisher
Franklin Ralph S. Knott Stokes Pauline Kirkman
Gaston Betty B. Jenkins Surry David J. Beal
Gates Terry L. Riddick Swain Sara Robinson
Graham 0. W. Hooper, Jr. Transylvania Marian M. McMahon
Granville Mary Ruth C. Nelms Tyrrell Nathan T. Everett
Greene Joyce L. Harrell Union Nola H. McCollum
Guilford Barbara G. Washington Vance Lucy Longmire
Halifax Ellen C. Neathery Wake John M. Kennedy
Harnett Georgia Lee Brown Warren Richard E. Hunter, Jr.
Haywood William G. Henry Washington Timothy L. Spear
Henderson Thomas H. Thompson Watauga John T. Bingham
Hertford Sheila Banks Wayne David B. Brantly
Hoke Juanita Edmund Wilkes Wayne Roope
Hyde Lenora R. Bright Wilson John L. Whitley
Iredell Angelia T. Roberts Yadkin Harold J. Long
Jackson Frank Watson, Jr. Yancey F. Warren Hughes
44
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
The Clerks of Superior Court
Association of Clerks of Superior Court
(Officers as of June 30, 1990)
J. Ray Elingburg, Buncombe County
President
Judy Arledge, Polk County
First Vice-President
C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr., Scotland County
Second Vice-President
Georgia L. Brown, Harnett County
Secretary
Thomas H. Thompson, Henderson County
Treasurer
J. Ray Elingburg
45
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
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 $56,856,236 was expended in 1989-90 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. (Expenditures data
for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and benefits)
for state employees for June 1990. The June 1990 payroll
was disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal 1990-91. As a
result, "total" expenditure data for 1989-90 are not
comparable to such data for prior years.)
Total expenditures for clerk's offices in 1989-90
amounted to 30.2% of the General Fund expenditures
for the operations of the entire Judicial Department.
1989-90 Caseload
During 1989-90, estate case filings totalled 46,832,
which was a slight decrease (0.3%) from the 46,992 estate
cases filed in 1988-89. Estate case dispositions totalled
45,330 in 1989-90, or 1.6% more than the previous year's
total of 44,609.
A total of 47,742 special proceedings was filed before
the 100 clerks of superior court in 1989-90. This is an
increase of 1,337 cases (2.9%) from the 46,405 filings in
the previous fiscal year. Special proceedings dispositions
totalled 39,171 cases, 4.9% less than the previous year's
total of 4 1,203.
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 1989-90 year was
1 28,2 1 5 and the total number of district court filings, not
including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital
commitment hearings, was 2,270,456.
More detailed information on the estates and special
proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this
Report.
46
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990
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 AOC (also referred to as the Adminis-trative
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 AOC.
The Assistant Director of 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 AOC.
The basic responsibility of 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 AOC's specific duties are to estab-lish
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
relating 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.
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 provision 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 AOC with contractual and other legal matters
affecting 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
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 of AOC evaluates,
plans, programs for, implements, and administers the
information processing needs of the Judicial Branch. In
addition to support for the personal computer operations
of AOC and court offices, the Information Services
Division develops and maintains the Court Information
System (CIS). The CIS includes computer-based and
manual data collection and data entry systems, providing
comprehensive statewide mainframe-based data pro-cessing
for civil and criminal case data (including the data
reported in this Annual Report), financial bookkeeping
and accounting systems, and data-sharing coordination
with other state agencies. In addition to maintenance of a
24-hour help desk, the Information Services Division
prepares and distributes periodic and special reports of
case processing and other statistical data.
The Personnel Division administers the salary, benefits,
and other personnel-related affairs of the Judicial Branch,
makes recommendations to the Director of AOC con-cerning
the pay scales and classification of employees,
conducts or arranges for training of AOC employees and
managers, and carries out numerous other duties to
enhance the recruitment, retention, productivity, and
satisfaction of 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.
47
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
The responsibilities of the Purchasing Services Division
include oversight of the competitive bidding system in
coordination with the Department of Administration,
administration of Judicial Branch mail and telecommuni-cation
services, management of the AOC print shop,
maintenance of the AOC fixed asset system, and
contracting for and handling of services for equipment
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 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 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 AOC.
A total of $14,618,914 was expended for AOC opera-tions
during 1989-90, representing 7.8% of total Judicial
Branch expenditures. Of the total $14,618,914, 65.9%
($9,640,710) was expended for the operations of and
computer equipment purchased through the Information
Services Division; this large percentage share for Infor-mation
Services in 1989-90 includes purchase of a new
mainframe computer for the statewide CIS system. The
remaining 34. 1% ($4,978,204) of total AOC expenditures
was for other AOC operations, including a total of
$405,342 for operation of the AOC warehouse and print
shop.
Administrative Office of the Courts
(As of June 30, 1990)
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
Virginia G. Weisz, Guardian ad Litem Services
Francis J. Taillefer, Information Services
Thomas A. Danek, Juvenile Services
Ivan Hill, Personnel Services
Douglas Pearson, Purchasing Services
Robert E. Giles, Research and Planning*
John Taylor, Special Projects
' Robert E. Giles retired effective January 1, 1990. Franklin Freeman, Jr.
48
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
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 1989-
90 fiscal year a total of 32,743 complaints were brought
to the attention of intake counselors. Of this number,
23,023 (70%) were approved for filing, and 9,920 (30%)
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 1989-90 a total of 14,656 juveniles were supervised
in the probation and aftercare program.
Expenditures
The Juvenile Services Division is State-funded. The
expenditures for fiscal year 1989-90 totalled $12,220,901.
(Expenditures data for 1989-90 do not include payroll
(salary and benefits) for state employees for June 1990.
The June 1990 payroll was disbursed in July 1990, which
is fiscal 1 990-9 1 . As a result, "total" expenditure data for
1989-90 are not comparable to such data for prior years.)
The 1989-90 expenditures amounted to 6.5% of all
General Fund expenditures for the operation of the
entire Judicial Department, about the same percentage
share of total Judicial Department expenditures for the
Division as in the previous fiscal year.
Administration
The Administrator of the Juvenile Services Division is
appointed by the Director of the Administrative Office
of the Courts. A chief court counselor is appointed for
each judicial district by the Administrator of the Juvenile
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, 1990)
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
49
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
Juvenile Services Division
(As of June 30, 1990)
District Court
District Chief Court Counselors
1 Donald Alexander
: Joseph A. Paul
3 Eve C. Rogers
4 George Ashley
5 Phyllis Roebuck
6A and 6B John R. Brady
7 Pam Honeycutt
8 Lynn C. Sasser
^ Sherman Wilson
1(1 Larry C. Dix
11 Henry C. Cox
12 Phil T. Utley
13 Jimmy E. Godwin
14 Fred Elkins
15A Harry L. Derr
15B Donald Hargrove
16A Alfred Bridges
District Court
District Chief Court Counselors
16B Carey Collins
17Aand 17B Martha M. Lauten
18 J. Manley Dodson
19A Verne Brady
19B and 19C James C. Queen
20 Jimmy L. Craig
21 James J. Weakland
22 Carl T. Duncan
23 C. Wayne Dixon
24 Lynn Hughes
25 Lee Cox
26 James A. Yancey
27A Charles Reeves
27B Gloria Newman
28 Louis Parrish
29 Kenneth E. Lanning
30 Betty G. Alley
THE COURT COUNSELORS ASSOCIATION
(Officers for 1989-90)
Executive Committee Members
Shirley Hudler, President
Richard Alligood, President-Elect
Walter Byrd, Secretary
Karen Jones, Treasurer
Diane Campbell, Parliamentarian
Board Members
1987-90 1988-91 1989-92
Gloria Newman
Blake Belcher
Charles Reeves
Kathy Dudley
Martha Lauten
Wayne Arnold
Joan Blanchard
Ken Cooke
Donald Roberts
Shirley Hudler
50
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
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 1989-90, a total of 1,51 1 volunteers were active in
the North Carolina program and represented a total of
8,161 abused and neglected children. These volunteers
participated in 9,943 court hearings and gave approxi-mately
138,000 volunteer hours to casework and training
in the State's guardian ad litem program.
Expenditures
During 1989-90, total expenditures for the guardian
ad litem program amounted to $2,068,450. (Expenditures
data for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and
benefits) for state employees for June 1990. The June
1990 payroll was disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal
1990-91. As a result, "total" expenditure data for 1989-
90 are not comparable to such data for prior years.) Of
this amount, $661,567 was for program attorney fees and
$1,406,883 was for program administration. The total
included reimbursement of volunteers' expense of
$98,810 (covering 119,871 casework hours for 8,161
abused and neglected children). In 1988-89, there were
1,252 volunteers representing 6,519 children and pro-viding
107,512 casework hours with reimbursement
expenses of $74,001.
Administration
The Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services, established
by the General Assembly in 1983, is a division of the
Administrative Office of the Courts. The Director of the
Administrative Office of the Courts appoints the Admin-istrator
of the Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services and
appoints members of a Guardian Ad Litem Advisory
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 30 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 initial sixteen-hour
training course for new volunteers, match children (who
are before the courts) with volunteers, implement con-tinued
training for experienced guardians, and provide
supervision of, and consultation and support to, volun-teers.
Other district administrator responsibilities are to
ensure that in each case the attorney receives information
from the volunteer assigned to the case and that the
court receives timely oral or written reports each time a
child's case is heard. (District administrators were not
employed during 1989-90 for districts in which the
caseload was too small to justify a district administrator
position. In those districts, a contract attorney served as
the coordinator and supervisor of the volunteer pro-gram.)
Guardian Ad Litem Staff
(As of June 30, 1990)
Virginia C. Weisz, Administrator
Alma Brown, Regional Administrator
Cindy Mays, Regional Administrator
Marilyn Stevens, Regional Administrator
51
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
Guardian ad Litem Division
(As of June 30, 1990)
istrict Court
District District Administratoi
1 Veola Spivey
2 Jennifer Leggett
3 Carol Mattocks
4 Jean Hawley
5 Jane Blister
6 Patsey Moseley-Moss
7 Sandra Pittman
8 Claudia Kadis
9 Nina Freeman
10 Lloyd Inman
12 Brownie Smathers
13 Michele Rohde and
Betty Buck
14 Cy Gurney
15A Eleanor Ketcham
15B Floyd Wicker
istrict Court
District District Administ
16A Julie Miller
16B Gladys Pierce
18 Sam Parrish
19A/C Amy Collins
19B Lee Malpass
20 Martha Sue Hall
21 Linda Garrou
22 Pam Ashmore
25 Anglea Phillips
26 Judi Strause
27A Sindy Waggoner
27B Betsy Sorrell
28 Jean Moore
29 Barbara King
30 Celia Larson
52
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1989-90
Public Defenders
During 1989-90, there were ten public defender offices
in North Carolina, serving Defender Districts 3A, 3B,
12, 15B, 16A, 16B, 18, 26, 27 A, and 28. Public defenders
in all districts except 16B are appointed by the senior
resident superior court judge of the superior court
district or set of districts which includes the county or
counties of the defender district; appointments are made
from a list of not less than two and not more than three
nominees submitted by written ballot of the licensed
attorneys resident in the defender district.* Their terms
are four years. Public