|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
. JUM S3 m ffiovtl] (Earoltna (Exmrte ISSS-8S JVnnual ^Report of tfye JVommtstrattOe ©fftce of tije Courts The Cover: The Wilkes County Courthouse in Wilkesboro, North Carolina was completed in 1 903. It is one of few surviving Beaux-Arts Neo-Classical Revival courthouses designed at the turn of the century by Charlotte, North Carolina architects. The three-story central core is fronted by a columned Ionic portico, crowned with a narrow oblong dome. Details include foliate scrolls in the portico's tympanum, bullseye windows in the base of the dome, segmental arched windows, and handsome wooden staircases rising at either side of the front entrance. Wilkes County was formed in 1 777 with Wilkesboro (originally called Mulberry Field) as the seat. NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 1988-89 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-third Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1, 1988 — June 30, 1989. Fiscal year 1988-89 marks the fifth consecutive year with significant increases in filings and dispositions in both the Superior and District Courts. During 1988-89, as compared to 1987-88, total case filings increased by 11.8% in Superior Court and by 9.9% in District Court; dispositions increased by 10.4% in Superior Court and by 10.3% 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 July 1990 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/sevenwisemenofco1989gumm TABLE OF CONTENTS Parti The 1988-89 Judicial Year in Review The 1988-89 Judicial Year in Review 1 Part II Court System Organization and Operations in 1988-89 Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 7 The Present Court System 9 Organization and Operations The Supreme Court 13 The Court of Appeals 24 Map of Judicial Divisions and Superior Court Districts 28 Map of District Court Districts 29 Map of Prosecutorial Districts 30 The Superior Courts 31 The District Courts 34 District Attorneys 40 Clerks of Superior Court 43 Juvenile Services Division 46 Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services 48 Public Defenders 50 Appellate Defender 52 The North Carolina Courts Commission 53 The Judicial Standards Commission 55 Part III Court Resources in 1988-89 Judicial Department Finances Appropriations 59 Expenditures 62 Receipts 64 Distribution of Receipts 65 Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 68 Judicial Department Personnel 76 Part IV Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1988-89 Trial Courts Case Data 79 Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 83 District Court Division Caseflow Data 175 Tables, Charts and Graphs Part II Court System Organization and Operations in 1988-89 Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the Present Court System 9 Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts 12 The Supreme Court of North Carolina 13 Supreme Court. Caseload Inventory 15 Supreme Court. Appeals Filed 16 Supreme Court. Petitions Filed 16 Supreme Court, Caseload Types 17 Supreme Court. Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage 18 Supreme Court, Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 18 Supreme Court. Disposition of Appeals 19 Supreme Court, Manner of Disposition of Appeals 20 Supreme Court, Type of Disposition of Petitions 20 Supreme Court. Appeals Docketed and Disposed of, 1983-84—1988-89 21 Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed, 1983-84—1988-89 22 Supreme Court, Processing Time for Disposed Cases 23 The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 24 Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 26 Court of Appeals, Manner of Case Dispositions 26 Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1983-84—1988-89 27 Map of Judicial Divisions and Superior Court Districts 28 Map of District Court Districts 29 Map of Prosecutorial Districts 30 Judges of Superior Court 31 Special Judges and Emergency Judges of Superior Court 32 District Court Judges 34 District Attorneys 39 Clerks of Superior Court 43 Chief Court Counselors — Juvenile Services Division 47 Guardian Ad Litem Division Coordinators 49 Public Defenders 50 Appellate Defenders 52 The North Carolina Courts Commission 53 The Judicial Standards Commission 55 Part III Court Resources in 1988-89 General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies and Judicial Department 59 General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies and Judicial Department 60 Tables, Charts and Graphs General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of All State Agencies and Judicial Department, 1982-83—1988-89 61 General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations 62 Judicial Department Expenditures 63 Judicial Department Receipts 64 Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 65 Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 66 Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 69 State Mental Health Hospital Commitment Hearings 70 Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem Cases and Expenditures 71 Judicial Department Personnel 76 Part IV Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1988-89 Superior Courts, Caseload Trends 84 Superior Courts, Caseload 85 Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 86 Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Trends 87 Superior Courts, Civil Case Filings By Case-Type 88 Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory 89 Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition 94 Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, By County 95 Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Pending 102 Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Disposed 107 Superior Courts, Caseload Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 112 Superior Courts, Filings and Dispositions For Estates and Special Proceedings 113 Superior Courts, Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases 118 Superior Courts, Criminal Case Filings By Case-Type 119 Superior Courts, Caseload Inventory for Criminal Cases 1 20 Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies 126 Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies, By District and County 127 Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors 135 Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors, By District and County 136 Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Pending, By District and County 144 Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Disposed, By District and County 158 District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 1 76 District Courts, Caseload Trends 177 District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 178 District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Cases 179 District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Filings By Case-Type 1 80 District Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory 181 District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 186 District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, By District and County 1 87 District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Pending, By District and County 197 District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Disposed, By District and County 202 District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/Transfer Cases Pending, By District and County 207 in Tables, Charts and Graphs District Courts. Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/Transfer Cases Disposed, By District and County 212 District Courts. Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 217 District Courts. Matters Alleged in Juvenile Petitions, By District and County 220 District Courts. Adjudicatory Hearings For Juvenile Matters, By District and County 225 District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Infractions and Criminal Cases 232 District Courts. Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 233 District Courts. Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory, By District and County 238 District Courts. Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 243 District Courts. Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition, By District and County 244 District Courts. Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Pending, By District and County 250 District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Disposed, By District and County 256 District Courts. Infraction Case Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 262 IV PARTI THE 1988-1989 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW THE 1988-89 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, 1988 and ended June 30, 1989. districts, provides for a new district court judge for new District Court District 6B, and a district attorney for new Prosecutorial District 6A. The Workload of the Courts Case filings in the Supreme Court during 1988-89 totaled 177, compared with 145 filings during 1987-88. A total of 447 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, compared with 635 in 1987-88; and 71 petitions were allowed, compared with 67 in 1987-88. For the Court of Appeals for 1988-89, case filings were 1,418 compared with 1,351 for the 1987-88 year. Petitions filed in 1988-89 totaled 385, compared with 446 during the 1987-88 year. More detailed data on the appellate courts is included in Part II of this Annual Report. In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal) increased by 1 1 .8% to a total of 1 1 8, 1 88 in 1 988-89, compared with 1 05,704 in 1 987-88. Superior court case dispositions also increased, to a total of 111,278, compared with 100,808 in 1987-88. As case filings during the year exceeded case dispositions, the total number of cases pending at the end of the year increased by 6,910. Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital commitment hearings, the statewide total of district court filings (civil and criminal) during 1988-89 was 2,203,743, an increase of 199,296 (9.9%) from 1987-88 filings of 2,004,447 cases. During 1988-89, a total of 678,189 infraction cases were filed along with a total of 467,644 criminal motor vehicle cases, for a combined total of 1 , 1 45,833 cases. This combined total is an increase of 1 1 7,58 1 cases (11 .4%) above the 1 ,028,252 cases filed during 1987-88. During 1988-89, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle cases in the district courts increased by 42,180 (8.2%) to 556,890, compared with 514,710 during 1987-88. Filings of civil magistrate cases in the district courts increased by 30,693 (11.1%), to 308,029 during 1 988-89 compared with 277,336 during 1987-88. Operations of the superior and district courts are summarized in Part II of this Report, and detailed information on the caseloads is presented in Part IV for the 100 counties, and for the judicial and prosecutorial districts. 1989 Legislative Highlights Redistricting District Court District 6 (effective December 1, 1989) and Prosecutorial District 6 (effective September 1, 1989) are divided into District Court and Prosecutorial Districts 6A (Halifax County) and 6B (Northampton, Bertie, and Hertford Counties) (Chapter 795, Sections 23 and 24). As a result, Superior Court, District Court, and Prosecutorial Districts 6A and 6B will be coterminous. Effective September 1, 1989, District Court District 19A is divided into District Court Districts 19A (Cabarrus County) and 19C (Rowan County) (Chapter 795, Section 23). As a result, Superior Court and District Court Districts 19A and 19C will be coterminous. Chapter 795 allocates existing personnel among these Additional Seat of District Court Effective September 1 , 1 989, an additional seat of district court is authorized for District Court District 11, in Clayton (Johnston County) (Chapter 795, Section 23). Court Costs and Fees Effective August 15, 1989, court fees to be collected for support of the General Court of Justice are increased by $ 1 in civil and criminal cases in superior and district court (Chapter 786, amending G.S. 7A-304(a) and 7A-305(a)). In superior court, total costs (including facilities and other fees) are increased to $60 in civil cases and $75 in criminal cases. In district court, the increases are to $45 in civil cases, $50 in criminal cases and infractions, and $29 in small claims cases assigned to a magistrate. Chapter 664, effective October 1, 1989, establishes a new fee of $15 under G.S. 7A-304(a), to be paid by convicted defendants who were released to the supervision of an agency providing pretrial release services. The fee is remitted to the county which provided the services. Chapter 719, effective October 1, 1989, amends the statute governing collection of costs in estates, G.S. 7A-307, to specify that no costs shall be assessed in certain small estate cases. Jurisdictional Amount in Small Claims Cases Effective October 1, 1989, the jurisdictional amount of civil small claims cases is increased from $1,500 to $2,000 (Chapter 311). Magistrate Jurisdiction in Littering, Infraction, and Estate Cases Effective October 1, 1989, the jurisdiction of magistrates was expanded in three areas. The cases in which a magistrate may accept a guilty plea and enter judgment under G.S. 7A- 273 were expanded to include littering offenses as directed by the chief district court judge (Chapter 343). Amendments to G.S. 7A-273(1) will allow magistrates to accept admission of responsibility and enter judgment in infractions cases in which the maximum penalty is $50 or less (Chapter 763); this statute presently covers misdemeanors in which the fine cannot exceed $50, and the amendment conforms to the 1986 decriminaliza-tion of minor traffic misdemeanors to "infractions." Finally, in certain estate cases under G.S. Chapter 30, magistrates may perform responsibilities related to the valuation of property assigned to a surviving spouse; previously, such duties were performed by two persons qualified to act as jurors (Chapter 11). Authorities of Clerks, Assistants, and Deputies The General Assembly amended G.S. 7A- 102(b), effective June 26, 1989, to promote efficiency when a superior or district THE 1988-89 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW court case is transferred from one county to another. In such cases, with consent of the clerks in both counties and the presiding judge, an assistant or deputy clerk from the original county may perform all the functions of the office of the Clerk in the county to which the case was transferred (Chapter 445). Chapter 493. effective June 28, 1989, makes two changes relating to when a clerk may decide not to hear a case. First, the reasons for disqualification under G.S. 7A-104 were expanded to specify that a clerk may disqualify him or herself in circumstances that justify disqualification or recusal by a judge. Second, in disputes between the County Board of Commissioners and the Board of Education, that are referred to a clerk under G.S. 115C-431(b), the clerk must transfer the matter to superior court if the clerk determines that the dispute cannot be arbitrated. Mandatory Civil Arbitration Following favorable experience in a pilot project for court-ordered nonbinding arbitration in civil cases, the General Assembly authorized the Supreme Court to adopt permanent rules governing such procedures statewide (Chapter 301, adding new G.S. 7A-37.1, effective July 1, 1989). Applicable to claims of $15,000 or less, the procedures must preserve a party's rights to trial de novo and jury trial. Subject to available funding. AOC is directed to implement (or terminate) arbitra-tion in such areas where the AOC Director and the senior resident superior court judge or chief district court judge conclude that the legislative objectives are (or are not) being accomplished. The objectives include greater efficiency, economy, and satisfaction. Child Custody and Visitation Mediation Favorable experience in a pilot project involving Districts 26 and 27A (Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties) led to enactment of new Article 39A in G.S. Chapter 7A, directing AOC to phase in programs statewide for mandatory mediation in cases involving child custody or visitation disputes (Chapter 795, Sec. 15). Under the procedures, unless the court grants a waiver based on statutory criteria, custody and visitation disputes must be referred to a mediator. Mediators must have the educational, training, and other qualifications specified by statute or AOC. The mediation, which is confidential, is intended to facilitate a cooperative, nonadversary 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. Funding was provided to continue the programs in the two pilot districts, and to establish one additional program in each fiscal year of the 1 989-9 1 biennium. Child Support Enforcement The General Assembly made several changes to strengthen and streamline the laws governing determination and enforce-ment of child support. Under Chapter 529, effective October 1, 1989 and until July 1 . 1 990, the "advisory" guidelines previously promulgated by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges under G.S. 50-1 3.4 will become "presumptive" guidelines, meaning that in the absence of special circumstances the amount of child support to be awarded by the court must be the amount set by the guidelines. The Conference of Chief District Court Judges is directed to prescribe uniform statewide presumptive guide-lines to be effective July 1, 1990, and to prescribe criteria for judges to apply when determining whether circumstances in a particular case justify deviation from the guidelines. The legislation includes requirements for public dissemination of proposed guidelines prior to their effectiveness. Chapter 601, effective October 1, 1989, amends G.S. 11- 1 36.3 et. seq to provide that in IV-D child support cases income withholding is to be ordered immediately upon entry or modification of a child support order, or at request of the person to whom support is to be paid. The availability of income withholding in non-IV-D cases was also expanded, and is now available if the obligor has been delinquent or erratic in making payments (previously the obligor had to be at least one month in arrearage). Additional amendments affecting child support include Chapter 479 (amending G.S. 50- 13.9(d), effective January 1, 1990), which makes sending a notice of delinquency prior to issuing an enforcement order in non-IV-D cases subject to the clerk's discretion if a notice of delinquency was sent during the prior 12 months; Chapter 490 (amending G.S. 110-130.1, effective June 28, 1989), which establishes a uniform $10 application fee for the services of the Department of Human Resources, and repeals certain provisions for recovering costs from low-income applicants; and Chapter 665 (effective October 1 , 1 989), which makes state retirement subject to child support withholding. Self-Representation in Domestic Violence Cases The General Assembly enacted specific statutory authority for a domestic violence victim to proceed with a civil action without assistance of counsel (Chapter 461, effective January 1, 1990). The Clerk must provide all necessary forms (to be developed by AOC), set hearing dates, and effect service of the summons, complaint, and other papers through appropriate law enforcement agencies upon payment of the service fee. Juvenile Code Revisions The 1989 Session made amendments to the Juvenile Code relating to a juvenile's privacy interests, custody, and placement. New subsection G.S. 7A-676(h) (added by Chapter 186, effective July 1, 1989) provides procedures for expunction of court and law enforcement records, on petition of a juvenile before or after reaching age 16, when a petition that alleged delinquent or undisciplined behavior was dismissed. The General Assembly expanded the court's authority to order a juvenile's parents to participate in medical, psycho-logical, or other treatment (Chapter 218, effective October 1, 1989). Under new subsection G.S. 7A-650(b2), if required for the juvenile's best interests, the court may order a parent to undergo such treatment as a condition to returning legal or physical custody to the parent. If the parent is unable to pay the costs of treatment, the court may charge the costs to the county. Chapter 235 (effective October 1, 1989) amends the prerelease planning process that is required when a juvenile THE 1988-89 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW who was committed to the Division of Youth Services is ready for release. The amendments require consideration of a transitional placement in any program of the Division of Youth Services or AOC. Chapter 124 (effective October 1, 1989) amends G.S. 7A- 575 to grant the court authority to detain a juvenile in secure custody when an SBI computer check reveals that there is a secure custody order for the juvenile on file in another county. Indigent Access to Civil Justice The General Assembly appropriated $1,000,000 for each year of the 1989-91 biennium to help pay for legal represen-tation of indigent persons in civil cases (Chapter 795, Sec. 25, effective August 12, 1989). The funds were appropriated to the North Carolina State Bar, for distribution to geographically based programs of the nonprofit Legal Services of North Carolina Corporation (LSNC). (The LSNC is also funded by the N.C. State Bar Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account program, and by federal funds under the U.S. Legal Services Corporation Act.) New section G.S. 7A-474.3 specifies types of civil cases for which state appropriation may be used (including cases involving family violence, spouse abuse, social security and other benefits, foreclosure actions against farmers, and child support), and cases for which state appropriation may not be used (including criminal cases, cases involving abortions, claims of agriculture employees regarding terms of employ-ment, and claims of prisoners regarding a term of incarceration). Indigent Persons' Attorney Fee Fund For the 1989-91 biennium, the General Assembly continued the allotment system, first enacted for 1988-89, under which funds for the fees of attorneys assigned to represent indigents are allotted to each district or county in proportion to each district's or county's assigned counsel caseload during the prior year (Chapter 500, Section 68). Speedy Trial Act Repealed Effective October 1, 1989, Chapter 688 repeals the Speedy Trial Act. Under the Act, a criminal defendant in superior court could obtain dismissal of the charges if the case did not come to trial within 1 20 days, unless the delay was excusable for reasons specified in the Act. (A criminal defendant has a Constitutional right to a "speedy trial" under both the North Carolina Constitution, Article I, Sections 18 and 21, and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.) Chapter 688 also enacts criteria which, at a minimum, the judge must consider under G.S. 15A-952 when determining whether to grant a continuance. The factors include the nature and complexity of the case, and whether the case involves physical or sexual abuse of a victim under age 16 whose well-being would be adversely affected by delay. Rights of Victims and Witnesses The General Assembly extended application of the Fair Treatment for Victims and Witnesses Act (Chapter 596, effective October 1, 1989, amending G.S. 15A-824 and -825). In addition to cases involving felonies, the Act will cover cases involving serious misdemeanors as determined in the sole discretion of the district attorney. Additional information to be given each victim and witness includes information about plea bargaining procedures; notice of the right to be present at the entire trial, unless sequestered by the judge; and the right to ask the district attorney to prevent disclosure of the victim's or witness' home address. Provisions requiring notice in certain cases of an offender's escape or scheduled release from custody are made subject to written request of the victim. Chapter 679 (effective July 26, 1989) and Chapter 322 (effective June 15, 1989) amend the Crime Victim's Compen-sation Act, G.S. Chapter 1 5B. The amendments limit compen-sation to victims, dependents, and third persons who provided voluntary assistance to a victim; expand the investigative powers of the Crime Victim's Compensation Commission; make compensation available to victims of an impaired driving offense; extend the right to claim compensation to North Carolina residents injured in a state that does not have a victim compensation program; and limit recovery to economic loss. Pretrial Release The General Assembly amended G.S. 7A-534(a) to allow a judicial official to impose conditions of pretrial release (such as restrictions on travel or conduct) on offenders who are released on secured bond (Chapter 259, effective October 1, 1989). Under present law, such authority extends only to forms of pretrial release other than secured bond. Substance Abuse Assessment of DWI Offenders Effective January 1, 1990, the substance abuse assessment required under G.S. 20-179(m) for certain offenders convicted of impaired driving will be required as a condition of probation for all offenders who are placed on probation (Chapter 691). This change has been in effect as a pilot project in ten counties since 1988. Present law in nonpilot counties requires such assessment only for second offenders and offenders who refused to take a blood alcohol test or who tested . 1 5 or more. Effective January 1, 1990, in all counties, new subsection G.S. 20-179(t) will require, in addition, substance abuse assessment for all offenders who did not receive probation, as a condition to having a revoked driver's license reissued. Additional amendments include provisions for requiring the defendant to pay the fees of the assessment or treatment before a driver's license may be reissued (effective July 28, 1989, in pilot counties, and July 1, 1990, statewide); and procedures by which the defendant may obtain court review of an assessment facility's refusal to certify completion of the assessment program (effective July 28, 1989, statewide). HIV (AIDS) Testing Chapter 499 amends G.S. 15A-534.3, effective October 1, 1989, requiring a test for the HIV and Hepatitis B viruses to be ordered for a criminal defendant at the time of first appearance if required by county health officials and if there is probable cause to believe that the defendant exposed someone to those viruses. THE 1988-89 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW New and Expanded Drug Offenses Chapters 672 and 690. amending G.S. 90-95(h) effective October 1. 1989. create the felony offenses, respectively, of trafficking in amphetamines and trafficking in methampheta-mines. Punishments range from prison sentences of at least seven years to at least 35 years and minimum fines ranging from S25.000 to S250.000. depending upon the quantity of drugs involved. Chapter 694 amends G.S. 14-17, effective October 1, 1989, making distribution of cocaine which results in death, second degree murder. Chapter 641 amends G.S. 90-95(d), effective October 1. 1989. making possession of any amount of cocaine a felony. Prison Population Stabilization Chapter 1 of the 1989 Session Laws increased the maximum number 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. The prison cap in G.S. 148-4.1 was raised, effective February 1, 1989. from 17,460 to 17,640. The amount of time the Parole Commission is given to reduce the prison population is raised from 60 days to 90 days. This legislation prohibits the granting of parole, merely to meet the prison cap, to certain sex and drug offenders, and expands the eligibility of certain other offenders for community service parole under G.S. 15A- 137 1(h) and 15A-1380.2(h). Emergency Judges The number of years of creditable service that a retired judge must have under G.S. 7A-52(a), in order to qualify to hold court as an emergency judge, was reduced from eight to five years (Chapter 116, effective May 22, 1989). Salaries Funds were appropriated by the 1989 Session for a six percent pay raise for all officials and employees of the Judicial Department for each year of the 1989-91 biennium. Amendments to G.S. 7A-171.1(a), effective July 1, 1989, make the salary credits for magistrates who have advanced degrees or specified prior relevant experience applicable to all magistrates. Under prior law, the credits applied only to beginning, full-time magistrates. The table in G.S. 7A-101(a) that governs the salaries of clerks of superior court, according to county population, was amended (Chapter 799, Section 27). As a result of deleting the lowest population category, effective July 1, 1989, clerks in counties with a population of less than 30,000 will be paid at the next higher pay scale. New Positions The 1989 Session of the General Assembly appropriated or authorized the use of funds for the following new positions during fiscal 1989-90: two district court judgeships, one for District 16A effective July 1, 1989, and the other for new District 6B, to be appointed by the Governor effective December 1, 1989, with election to a four-year term in 1990; two court reporters for superior court and four court reporters for district court; two secretaries for superior court judges; ten secretaries for chief district court judges who at present do not have secretaries; ten magistrates to be allocated in accordance with G.S. 7A-171; 19 assistant district attorneys, assigned to Districts 3B, 4, 5, 7, 10, 1 1, 15A, 15B, two in 16A, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27A, and 28; 14 secretaries for district attorney offices; 10 victim/witness assistant positions; 36 deputy clerks, plus up to $670,000 of funds appropriated as salaries for temporary deputy clerks to establish full- or part-time perma-nent positions; authority to use up to $218,055 from the indigent persons attorney fee fund for five new assistant public defenders; two secretaries for public defender offices; an assistant to special counsel in the 10th District; 22 juvenile court counselor positions and six secretaries; and upgrade or establishment of 32 guardian ad litem positions. For the 1990-91 fiscal year, subject to change in the 1990 Session, the 1989 Session appropriated or authorized the use of funds for the following additional positions: six new resident superior court judgeships, and two special judgeships converted to regular judgeships, allocated to Districts 3 A, 5, 1 1 , 1 3, 1 7 A, 20A, 25A, and 29, to be elected in the 1990 elections, with terms commencing January 1, 1991, and terms ending concurrently with the terms of other superior court judge(s) in these respective districts; 15 district court judgeships, one effective July 1, 1990, for District 9, to be appointed by the Governor and with election for a four-year term in 1992, and the other 14 district court judgeships effective December 3, 1990, to be filled in the 1990 elections, for Districts 4, 5, 7, 10, 1 1 , 1 2, 1 7B, 1 8, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27B, and 28; six court reporters for superior court; two secretaries for superior court judges; five magistrates, to be allocated in accordance with G.S. 7A-171; one case management assistant each for trial court admini-strators in the 10th and 26th districts; eight assistant district attorneys, for Districts 1, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17B, 27B, and 30; five secretaries for district attorney offices; two victim and witness assistant positions; 18 deputy clerks, plus authorization to use up to $670,000 of funds appropriated as salaries for temporary deputy clerks to establish full- or part-time permanent positions; authorization to use up to $261,615 from the indigent persons attorney fee fund for five new assistant public defenders; one secretary and one paralegal for public defender offices; seven juvenile court counselor positions; and four new guardian ad litem staff positions. Total Appropriation The 1 989 Session of the General Assembly appropriated a total of $200,599,095 to the Judicial Department for the 1989-90 fiscal year. For the 1990-91 fiscal year, subject to revision by the 1990 Session, the total appropriated for the Judicial Department is $204,475,395. PART II COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS • Historical Development of Court System • Present Court System • Organization and Operations in 1988-89 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 1 700 the royal governor established a General (or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute developed over the appointment of associate justices. The Assembly conceded to the King the right to name the chiefjustice but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the power to appoint the associate justices. Other controversies developed 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 1 746, which contained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary court system) and periods of stalemate and anarchy after such enactments were nullified by royal authority. A more elaborate system was framed by legislation in 1767 to last five years. It was not renewed because of persisting disagreement between local and royal partisans. As a result, North Carolina was without higher courts until after Independence (Battle, 847). At the lower court level during the colonial period, judicial and county government administrative functions were com-bined 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 recommenda-tion of the General Assembly, and they were paid out of fees charged litigants. On the lowest level of the judicial system, magistrate courts of limited 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 interchangeable during the period immediately following the Revolution. One of the most vexing governmental problems confronting the new State of North Carolina was its judiciary. "From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary caused complaint and demands for reform." (Lefler and Newsome, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflicting judge opinions, an insuf-ficient number ofjudges, and lack of means for appeal were all cited as problems, although the greatest weakness was con-sidered to be the lack of a real Supreme Court. In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court of Conference to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the districts. This court was continued and made permanent by subsequent laws. The justices were required to put their opinions in writing to be delivered orally in court. The Court of Conference was changed in name to the Supreme Court in 1805 and authorized to hear appeals in 1810. Because of the influence of the English legal system, however, there was still no conception of an alternative to judges sitting together to hear appeals from cases which they had themselves heard in the districts in panels of as few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 1818, though, an inde-pendent three-judge Supreme Court was created for review of cases decided at the Superior Court level. Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in each county were made mandatory in 1806, and the State was divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the six judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constituting a quorum as before. The County Court of justices of the peace continued during this period as the lowest court and as the agency of local government. After the Civil War Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it more democratic were made in 1868. A primary holdover from the English legal arrangement — the distinction between law and equity proceedings — was abolished. The County Court's control of local government was abolished. Capital offenses were limited to murder, arson, burglary and rape, and the Constitution stated that the aim of punishment was "not only to satisfy justice, but also to reform the offender, and thus prevent crime." The membership of the Supreme Court was raised to five, and the selection of the justices (including the designation of the chiefjustice) and superior court judges (raised in number to 12) was taken from the legislature and given to the voters, although vacancies were to be filled by the governor until the next election. The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — The County Court of which three justices of the peace constituted a quorum — was eliminated. Its judicial responsibilities were divided between the Superior Courts and the individual justices of the peace, who were retained as separate judicial officers with limited jurisdiction. Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 Constitu-tion in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme Court 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 Historical Development Of The North Carolina Court System, Continued in the post-Civil War Constitution, however, were left, and the i udicial structure it had established continued without systema-tic modification through more than half of the 20th century. (A further constitutional amendment approved by the voters in November. 1888. returned the Supreme Court membership to Eve, 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 andjurisdiction. 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 established individually by special legislative acts more than a half-century earlier. Others had been created by general law across the State since 1919. About half were county courts and half were city or township courts. Jurisdiction included misdemeanors (mostly traffic offenses), preliminary hearings and sometimes civil matters. The judges, who were usually part-time, were variously elected or appointed locally. At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's court and some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had similar criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties up to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the peace also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These court officials were compen-sated 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 replacement by a single District Court; the office of justice of the peace was to be abolished, and the newly fashioned position of magistrate would function within the District Court as a subordinate judicial office. Constitutional amendments were introduced in the legisla-ture 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 1 970 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 1 7th 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 1972 to allow for the Supreme Court to censure or remove judges; implementing legislation provides 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 Constitution, 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. Major Sources Battle, Kemp P., An Address on the History ofthe 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 Slate. 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 Original Jurisdiction \ All felony cases; civil I cases in excess of ^ $10,000* SUPERIOR COURTS 77 Judges Final Order of Utilities Commission in General Rate Cases 1 COURT OF APPEALS 12 Judges K / Decisions of Most Administrative Agencies Original Jurisdiction Probate and estates, special proceedings (condemnations, adoptions, partitions, foreclosures, etc.) criminal cases (for trial de novo) V| 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) civil cases I DISTRICT COURTS 162 Judges Clerks of Superior Court (100) Original Jurisdiction Misdemeanor cases not assigned to magistrates; probable cause hearings; civil cases $10,000* or less; juvenile proceedings; domestic relations; involuntary commitments Magistrates (644) Original Jurisdiction Accept certain misdemeanor guilty pleas and admissions of responsibility to infractions; worthless check misdemeanors $1,000 or less; small claims $1,500 or less ( 1 ) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in cases involving constitutional questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may review Court of Appeals decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. (2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. (3) As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in first degTee 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). THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution establishes the General Court of Justice which "shall constitute a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction, operation, and administration, and shall consist of an Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a District Court Division." The Appellate Division 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. 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 35 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," stating that "The General Assem-bly shall have no power to deprive the judicial department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the government, nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other than as permitted by this Article." The terms, "General Court of Justice" and "Judicial Depart-ment" are almost, but not quite, synonymous. It may be said that the Judicial Department encompasses all of the levels of court designated as the General Court of Justice plus all administrative and ancillary services within the Judicial Department. The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal between the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of courts are illustrated in the chart on the previous page. Criminal Cases Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original jurisdiction of the district courts. Some misdemeanor offenses are tried by magistrates, who are also empowered 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 misdemeanors are by district court judges, who also hold preliminary, "probable cause" hearings in felony cases. Trial of felony cases is within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the district court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by jury available at the district court level; appeal from the 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, condemnations under the authority of eminent domain, and foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the superior court. The district courts have original jurisdiction in juvenile proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for 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 $1,500 or less and the plaintiff in the case so requests, the chief district court judge may assign the case for initial hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates' decisions may be appealed to the district court. Trial by jury for civil cases is available in the district courts; appeal from the judgment of a district court in a civil case is to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of general civil cases where the amount in controversy is more than $10,000. Appeals from decisions of most administrative agencies are first within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in civil cases is to the Court of Appeals. Administration The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of the other courts of the General Court of Justice." (G.S. 7A-32(b)). In addition to this grant of general supervisory power, the North Carolina General Statutes provide certain Judicial Department officials with specific powers and responsibilities for the operation of the court system. The Supreme Court has the responsibility for prescribing rules of practice and procedures for the appellate courts and for prescribing rules for the trial courts to supplement those prescribed by statute. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court designates one of thejudges 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 admini-strative responsibilities vested in Judicial Department 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 35 district court districts from among the elected district court judges of the respective districts. These judges have 10 The Present Court System, Continued 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 statis-tical 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, education 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 administrative services. The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk for both the superior and district courts. Until 1980, the clerk also served as chairman of the county's calendar committee, which set the civil case calendars. Effective July 1, 1980, these committees were eliminated; day-to-day calendaring of civil cases is now done by the clerk of superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in some districts, under the supervision of the senior resident superior court judge and chief district court judge. The criminal case calendars in both superior courts and district courts are set by the district attorney of the respective district. 11 THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts CHIEF JUSTICE and SUPREME COURT 2A Administrative Office of the Courts 4 (36) District Attorneys (44) Senior Resident Judges; (100) Clerks of Superior Court SUPERIOR COURTS (35) 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 35 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. 12 THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA (As of June 30, 1989) 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 ChiefJustices 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 13 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The Supreme Court At the apex of the North Carolina court system is the seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to consider and decide questions of law presented in civil and criminal cases on appeal. The Chief Justice and six associate justices are elected to eight-year terms by the voters of the State. There are two terms of the Supreme Court each year: a Spring Term commencing on the first Tuesday in February and a Fall Term commencing on the first Tuesday in September. The Court does not sit in panels. It sits only en banc, that is, all members sitting on each case. Jurisdiction The only original case jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court is in the censure and removal of judges upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judicial Standards Commis-sion. The Court's appellate jurisdiction includes: - cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals (cases involving substantial constitutional questions and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals); - cases on appeal by right from the Utilities Commission (cases involving final order or decision in a general rate matter); - criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior courts (first degree murder cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to death or life imprisonment); and - cases in which review has been granted in the Supreme Court's discretion. Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly from the trial courts may be granted when delay would likely cause substantial harm or when the workload of the Appellate Division is such that the expeditious administration of justice requires it. However, most appeals are heard only after review by the Court of Appeals. Administration The Supreme Court has general power to supervise and control the proceedings of the other courts of the General Court of Justice. The Court has specific power to prescribe the rules of practice and procedure for the trial court divisions, consistent with any rules enacted by the General Assembly. The schedule of superior court sessions in the 100 counties is approved yearly by the Supreme Court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court, the Librarian of the Supreme Court Library, and the Appellate Division Reporter are appointed by the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and an Assistant Director, who serve at the pleasure of the Chief Justice. He also designates a Chief Judge from among the judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief District Court Judge from among the district judges in each of the State's 35 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 temporary 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 courtjudge 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 Admini-strative Law Judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings. Expenses of the Court, 1988-89 Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 1988- 89 fiscal year amounted to $2,650,035, an increase of 1 2.6% over total 1987-88 expenditures of $2,352,654. Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 1988-89 constituted 1.5% of all General Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. Case Data, 1988-89 A total of 270 appealed cases were before the Supreme Court during the fiscal year, 93 that were pending on July 1, 1988, plus 177 cases filed through June 30, 1989. A total of 1 54 of these cases were disposed of, leaving 1 16 cases pending on June 30, 1989. A total of 531 petitions (requests to appeal) were before the Court during the 1988-89 year, with 397 disposed during the year and 134 pending as of June 30, 1989. The Court granted 71 petitions for review during 1988-89 compared to 67 for 1987-88. More detailed data on the Court's workload are presented on the following pages. 14 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Supreme Court Caseload Inventory July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989 Petitions for Review Civil domestic Juvenile Other civil Criminal Postconviction remedy Administrative agency decision Total Petitions for Review Pending Pending 7/1/88 Filed Disposed 6/30/89 2 14 8 X 6 5 1 48 196 197 47 25 185 144 66 6 41 38 9 3 5 5 3 84 447 397 134 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 I 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 8 30 19 19 23 43 42 24 21 23 14 30 23 33 41 15 5 12 11 6 9 17 12 14 3 10 9 4 3 3 93 177 154 116 16 16 38 38 616 616 4 11 13 2 681 683 15 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 APPEALS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT JULY 1, 1988 — JUNE 30, 1989 CRIMINAL-DEATH CRIMINAL LIFE ADMIN. AGENCY DOMESTIC RELATIONS OTHER CIVIL OTHER CRIMINAL PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT JULY 1, 1988 — JUNE 30, 1989 OTHER CIVIL JUVENILE 1.3% (6) CRIMINAL ADMIN. AGENCY 1.1% (5) DOMESTIC RELATIONS 3.1% (14) POSTCONVICTION 16 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Supreme Court Caseload Types by Superior Court District and Division July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989 Judicial Superior Court Total Death Life Other Civil Other Cases Division District Cases Cases Cases Criminal Cases Cases Disposed I 1 6 1 4 1 3 2 4 3 1 2 3A 5 1 1 2 1 2 3B 5 1 4 1 4A 2 1 1 1 4B 6 3 1 1 1 3 5 10 3 5 1 1 3 6A 5 4 1 1 6B 7 1 2 3 1 4 7A 3 1 2 2 7B-C 2 1 1 2 8A 2 1 1 8B 3 3 1 SUBTOTAL 60 15 22 10 13 25 II 9 5 2 1 2 2 10 49 5 3 3 19 19 25 11 6 1 2 3 4 12 18 3 9 4 2 6 13 2 2 1 14 16 3 2 3 8 8 15A 4 1 3 3 15B 7 1 1 5 5 16A 3 3 16B 8 6 1 1 4 SUBTOTAL 118 25 18 13 42 20 58 III 17A 5 2 1 1 1 11 17B 1 1 18 17 2 3 2 10 11 19A 3 1 1 1 1 19B 3 1 1 1 1 19C 2 2 20A 6 2 2 2 3 20B 2 1 1 2 21 15 7 2 5 1 7 22 8 4 3 1 1 23 6 1 1 2 2 5 SUBTOTAL 68 15 17 9 25 2 32 IV 24 3 2 1 1 25A 5 3 1 1 1 25B 4 3 1 1 26 21 2 2 5 9 3 13 27A 4 1 1 2 2 27B 4 1 1 2 3 28 12 1 4 1 5 1 7 29 9 2 5 1 1 4 30A 2 2 2 30B 5 3 2 5 SUBTOTAL 69 9 20 12 24 4 39 TOTALS 315 64 77 44 104 26 NOTE: Includes life & death sentence cases awaiting Record on Appeal and not yet formally docketed. 154 17 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage in Supreme Court July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989 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 1 73 23 47 26 10 185 1 1 2 187 Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings by the Supreme Court July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989 Granted* Denied 4 4 1 4 44 146 19 119 13 3 2 71 288 Petitions for Review Civil Domestic Juvenile Other Civil Criminal Postconviction Remedy Administrative Agency Decision Total Petitions for Review Other Proceedings Rule 16(b) — Additional Issues Advisory Opinion Rule Amendments Motions Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear Total Other Proceedings •"GRANTED" includes orders allowing relief without accepting the case as a full appeal. Dismissed/ Withdrawn 7 6 25 38 Total Disposed 8 5 197 144 38 5 397 16 38 616 13 683 \H ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Signed Opinions Reversed Total Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed Civil domestic 2 2 Juvenile 1 1 Other civil 15 5 6 19 45 Criminal (death sentence) 8 1 3 1 13 Criminal (life sentence) 31 7 38 Other criminal 4 6 3 13 Postconviction remedy Administrative agency decision 7 7 Totals 67 13 33 119 Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Decisions Reversed Total Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed Civil domestic 2 2 Juvenile Other civil 9 2 11 Criminal (death sentence) Criminal (life sentence) Other criminal 5 1 1 7 Postconviction remedy Administrative agency decision 1 1 2 Totals 17 22 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 1 5 1 3 3 13 19 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF APPEALS IN THE SUPREME COURT JULY 1, 1988-JUNE 30, 1989 DISMISSED/WITHDRAWN OPINIONS PER CURIAM DECISIONS TYPE OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT JULY 1, 1988-JUNE 30, 1989 DENIED GRANTED DISMISSED/WITHDRAWN 20 NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT Appeals Docketed and Disposed of During the Years 1983-84—1988-89 400 IAppeals Docketed Appeals Disposed of 300 N UM B E R O 200 F C A S E S 100 227 200 196 216 145 177 154 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 21 NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years 1983-84—1988-89 800 N I M B I R O F C \ s [ s 600 400 I 200 Petitions Docketed Petitions Allowed 733 547 70 447 67 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 71 1988-89 22 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Supreme Court Processing Time for Disposed Cases (Total time in days from docketing to decision) July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989 Civil domestic Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals Juvenile Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals Other civil Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals Criminal, defendant sentenced to death Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment Other criminal Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals Petitions for review granted that became postconviction remedy cases Administrative agency decision Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative agency decision Total appeals Number (Days) (Days) of Cases Median Mean 1 309 309.0 4 133 136.5 1 156 156.0 19 210 194.6 42 208 223.5 14 499 512.1 41 279 280.6 11 140 178.4 12 201 267.5 9 380 400.4 154 237 269.8 23 THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA* Chief Judge R. A. HEDRICK GERALD ARNOLD HUGH A. WELLS CHARLES L. BECTON CLIFTON E. JOHNSON EUGENE H. PHILLIPS SIDNEY S. EAGLES, JR. Judges SARAH PARKER JACK COZORT ROBERT F. ORR K. EDWARD GREENE JOHN B. LEWIS, JR. FRANK M. PARKER EDWARD B. CLARK ROBERT M. MARTIN Retired Judges CECIL J. HILL E. MAURICE BRASWELL Clerk FRANCIS E. DAIL *Asof30 June 1989 24 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The Court of Appeals The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's inter-mediate 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 Commissioner of Insurance, the Board of State Contract Appeals, the Department of Human Re-sources, the Commissioner of Banks, the Administrator of Savings and Loans, the Governor's Waste Management Board, the Property Tax Commission, and the Utilities Commission (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) recommenda-tion 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 Commission's chair). Such seven-member panel would have sole jurisdiction to act upon the Commission's recommendation. Expenses of the Court, 1988-89 Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during the 1988-89 fiscal year totalled $3,352,986, an increase of 6.2% over 1987-88 expenditures of $3,158,383. Expenditures for the Court of Appeals during 1988-89 amounted to 1.9% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. Case Data, 1988-89 A total of 1 ,4 1 8 appealed cases were filed before the Court of Appeals during the period July 1 , 1 988 - June 30, 1 989. A total of 1 , 1 88 cases were disposed of during the same period. During 1988-89, a total of 385 petitions and 1,435 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. 25 FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989 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 276 622 43 477 1,418 Dispositions 1,188 Petitions Allowed Denied Remanded Total 385 40 345 385 Motions Allowed Denied Remanded Total Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions and Motions 1,029 406 1,435 1,435 3,238 3,008 MANNER OF CASE DISPOSITIONS — COURT OF APPEALS July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989 Cases Disposed by Written Opinion Cases Affirmed 719 Cases Reversed 214 Cases Affirmed In Part, Reversed In Part 101 Other Cases Disposed 154 Total Cases Disposed 1,188 26 FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Fiscal Years 1983-84 Through 1988-89 3000 2500 N U M B E R O F C A S F S 2000 1500 1000 500 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed cases and petitions (not motions) in the Court of Appeals. 27 ON 4^ oo *H On OU o 2 o 00 25 Si t5 .a A 5 2X CZ3 o o U CO e Q o o oo On C3 O 00 29 o1— I c3 O oo O g &h O U oZ 30 JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT* (As of June 30, 1989) FIRST DIVISION District 1 2 3A 3B 4A 4B 5 6A 6B 7A 7B 7C 8A 8B 10A 10B IOC 10D 11 12A 12B 12C 13 14A 14B 15A 15B 16A 16B *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 *Charles B. Winberry, 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 *Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn *D. B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville Gregory A. Weeks, Fayetteville Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville *Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., Durham *Anthony M. Brannon, Durham J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham A. Leon Stanback, Jr., Durham *J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington *F. Gordon Battle, Hillsborough *B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg *Joe Freeman Britt, Lumberton Dexter Brooks, Lumberton 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 21 C William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem 21D James A. Beaty, Jr., Winston-Salem 22 *Preston Cornelius, Mooresville Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville 23 *Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro 24 FOURTH DIVISION *Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone 25A *Claude S. Sitton, Morganton 25B *Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 26A W. Terry Sherrill, Charlotte Shirley L. Fulton, Charlotte 26B *Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte Kenneth A. Griffin, 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 31 SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT Marvin K. Gray, Charlotte I. Beverly Lake, Jr., Raleigh Samuel T. Currin, Raleigh EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh John R. Friday, Lincolnton D. Marsh McLelland, Graham Edward K. Washington, High Point L. Bradford Tillery, Wilmington Thomas H. Lee, Durham The Conference of Superior Court Judges (Executive Committee as of June 30, 1989) Robert D. Lewis, Asheville, President J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City, President-Elect Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone, Vice-President E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville, Secretary-Treasurer James M. Long, Pilot Mountain, Immediate Past-President Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg, Ex Officio Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown, and Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro, Additional Executive Committee Members Judge Robert D. Lewis 32 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The Superior Courts North Carolina's superior courts are the general jurisdiction trial courts for the state. In 1988-89, there were 74 "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 are 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 $10,000, and it has jurisdiction over appeals from administra-tive 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 Admin-istrator of Savings and Loans, the Governor's Waste Manage-ment Board, and the Utilities Commission. Appeals from these agencies 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 comprise two or more counties; and the more populous counties are divided among a "set of districts," composed of two or more districts created for purposes of election of superior court judges. Each district has at least one resident superior court judge who has certain administrative responsibilities for his or her home district, such as providing for civil case calendaring procedures. (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, holding court for at least six months in each, then moving 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 (a week each) of superior court are held annually in each of the 100 counties. The vast majority of counties have more than the constitutional minimum of two weeks of superior court annually. Many larger counties have superior court sessions about every week in the year. Expenditures A total of $16,928,560 was expended on the operations of the superior courts during the 1988-89 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. The 1988-89 expendi-ture for the superior courts amounted to 9.6% of the total General Fund expenditures for the operations of the entire Judicial Department during the 1988-89 fiscal year. Caseload Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 1 18,188 cases were filed in the superior courts during 1988-89, an increase of 12,484 cases ( 1 1 .8%) from the total of 105,704 cases that were filed in 1987-88. There were increases in filings in all case categories: civil cases, felony cases, and misdemeanor cases. Superior court case dispositions increased from 100,808 in 1987-88 to 111,278 in 1988-89. Dispositions in all case categories increased. More detailed information on the flow of cases through the superior courts is included in Part IV of this Report. 33 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* (As of June 30, 1989) 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, Bethel 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 6 Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck Robert E. Williford, Lewiston 7 George Britt, Tarboro Allen W. Harrell, Wilson Quentin T. Sumner, Rocky Mount Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson 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 David Q. LaBarre, Durham Richard Chaney, Durham William Y. Manson, Durham Carolyn D. Johnson, Durham Kenneth C. Titus, Durham 15A W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham Spencer B. Ennis, Burlington James K. Washburn, Burlington 15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill Lowry M. Betts, Pittsboro Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill 16A Warren L. Pate, Raeford 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, Reidsville Robert R. Blackwell, Reidsville Philip W. Allen, Yanceyville 17B Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy Clarence W. Carter, King 18 J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro Sherry F. Alloway, Greensboro Robert E. Bencini, Jr., 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 Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury Robert M. Davis, Salisbury Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis •The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 34 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* (As of June 30, 1989) District 19B William M. Neely, Asheboro Richard M. Toomes, Asheboro Vance B. Long, Asheboro 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, Valdese Jonathan L. Jones, Valdese Timothy S. Kincaid, Newton Nancy L. Einstein, Lenoir District 26 James E. Lanning, Charlotte Marilyn R. Bissell, Charlotte L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte Richard A. Elkins, Charlotte H. Brent McKnight, Charlotte Resa L. Harris, Charlotte Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte William G. Jones, Charlotte H. William Constangy, Jr., Charlotte William H. Scarborough, Charlotte Richard D. Boner, Charlotte 27A Larry B. Langson, Gastonia Daniel J. Walton, Gastonia Harley B. Gaston, Jr., Belmont Timothy L. Patti, Gastonia Catherine C. Stevens, Gastonia 27B George W. Hamrick, Shelby James T. Bowen, III, Lincolnton J. Keaton Fonvielle, Shelby 28 Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden Gary S. Cash, Fletcher Robert L. Harrell, Asheville Peter L. Roda, Asheville 29 Loto J. Greenlee, 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. 35 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES The Association of District Court Judges (Officers as of June 30, 1989) Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury, President Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston, Vice President Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory, Secretary-Treasurer E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy Charles P. Ginn, Boone Additional Executive Committee Members Judge Frank M. Montgomery 36 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 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 162 district court judges serving in 35 district court districts during 1988-89. These judges are elected to four-year terms by the voters of their respective districts. A total of 644 magistrate positions were authorized as of June 30, 1989. Of this number, about 70 positions were specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominations submitted by the clerk of superior court of their county, and they are supervised by the chief district court judge of their district. Jurisdiction The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtually all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary commitments and recom-mitments to mental hospitals, and domestic relations cases. Effective September 1, 1986, the General Assembly decrimi-nalized many minor traffic offenses. Such offenses, previously charged as misdemeanors, are now "infractions," defined as non-criminal violations of law not punishable by imprison-ment. The district court division has original jurisdiction for all infraction cases. The district courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the superior courts in general civil cases, but the district courts are the proper courts for the trial of civil cases where the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less. Upon the plaintiffs request, a civil case in which the amount in controversy is $1,500 or less, may be designated a "small claims" case and assigned by the chief district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magistrates are empowered to try worthless check criminal cases as directed by the chief district court judge when the value of the check does not exceed $1,000. In addition, they may accept written appearances, waivers of trial, and pleas of guilty in such worthless check cases when the amount of the check is $1,000 or less, the offender has made restitution, and the offender has fewer than four previous worthless check convictions. Magistrates may accept waivers of appearance and pleas of guilty 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 Judges. Magistrates also conduct initial hearings to fix conditions of release for arrested defendants, and they are empowered to issue arrest and search warrants. Administration A chief district court judge is appointed for each district court district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from among the elected judges in the respective districts. Subject to the Chief Justice's general supervision, each chief judge exercises administrative supervision and authority over the operation of the district courts and magistrates in the district. Each chiefjudge is responsible for scheduling sessions of district court and assigning judges; supervising the calendaring of noncriminal cases; assigning matters to magistrates; making arrangements for court reporting and jury trials in civil cases; and supervising the discharge of clerical functions in the district courts. The chief district court judges meet in conference at least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual conference adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses and fines for their violation for use by magistrates and clerks of court in accepting defendants' waivers of appearance and guilty pleas. Expenditures Total expenditures for the operation of the district courts in 1 988-89 amounted to $32, 1 7 1 ,668. This is an increase of 7.5% over 1987-88 expenditures of $29,939,853. Included in this total are the personnel costs of court reporters and secretaries as well as the personnel costs of the 162 district court judges and 644 magistrates. The 1988-89 total is 18.2% of the General Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial Department, about the same percentage share of total Judicial Department expenditures for the district courts in the 1987-88 fiscal year. Caseload During 1988-89 the statewide total number of district court filings (civil and criminal) increased by 199,296 cases (9.9%) over the total number reported for 1987-88. Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital commitment hearings, a total of 2,203,743 cases were filed in 1988-89. Much of this increase is attributable to increases in criminal motor vehicle and infraction filings. Considering criminal motor vehicle and infraction cases together there was an increase of 1 1 7,58 1 cases (11.4%) above the number of such cases filed in 1987-88. Filings of criminal non-motor vehicle cases increased by 42, 1 80 (8.2%), and filings of civil magistrate cases increased by 30,693 (11.1%) above the number of cases filed in these categories in 1987-88. 37 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The District Courts The Conference of Chief District Court Judges (Officers as of June 30, 1989) Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury, President Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids, Secretary-Treasurer Judge Frank M. Montgomery 38 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 DISTRICT ATTORNEYS (As of June 30, 1989) 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 6 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 12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 13 MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Bolivia 14 RONALD L. STEPHENS, Durham 15A STEVE A. BALOG, Graham 1 5B CARL R. FOX, Chapel Hill 16A JEAN E. POWELL, Raeford Prosecutorial District 16B JOHN R. TOWNSEND, Lumberton 17A THURMAN B. HAMPTON, Wentworth 17B HAROLD D. BOWMAN, Dobson 1 8 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 39 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The District Attorneys The Conference of District Attorneys (Executive Committee as of June 30, 1989) Ronald L. Stephens, President H. P. Williams, Jr., President-Elect W. David McFadyen, Jr., Vice President Michael F. Easley Thomas D. Haigwood Calvin B. Hamrick Horace M. Kimel C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., The District Attorneys Association (Officers as of June 30, 1989) Ronald L. Stephens, Durham, President H. P. Williams, Jr., Elizabeth City, President-Elect W. David McFadyen, Jr., New Bern, Vice President Gail Weiss, Durham, Secretary- Treasurer District Attorney Ronald L. Stephens 40 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The District Attorneys The State is divided into 36 prosecutorial districts which, with one exception, correspond to the 35 district court districts. The counties in District Court District 3 make up two separate prosecutorial districts, Prosecutorial Districts 3A and 3B. Prosecutorial District 3A consists of Pitt County, and Prosecu-torial District 3B is comprised of Craven, Carteret, and Pamlico (G.S. 7A-60). A district attorney is elected by the voters in each of the 36 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 prosecutorial 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, 1989, a total of 23 1 assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 36 prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District 26 (Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff (19 assistants) and the district attorney of five districts (15A, 15B, 17B, 23, and 24) had the smallest staff (three assistants). Each district attorney is authorized to employ an admini-strative assistant to aid in preparing cases for trial and to expedite the criminal court docket. The district attorney in 1 8 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 $20,452,61 1 was expended in 1988-89 for the 36 offices of district attorney. In addition, a total of $102,550 was expended for the District Attorney's Conference and its staff. 1988-1989 Caseload A total of 100,587 criminal cases were filed in the superior courts during 1988-89, consisting of 62,752 felony cases and 37,835 misdemeanor cases; all but 4,658 of the misdemeanors were appeals from the district courts. The total number of criminal filings in the superior courts in 1987-88 was 88,948. The increase of 11,639 cases in 1988-89 represents a 13.1% increase over the 1987-88 total. A total of 94,625 criminal cases were disposed of in the superior courts during 1988-89. There were 58,453 felony dispositions, and 36,172 misdemeanor dispositions. In 1988- 89, total criminal case dispositions increased by 9,502 cases (11.2%) over the 85,123 cases disposed of in 1987-88. The median ages of criminal cases at disposition in the superior courts during 1988-89 were 85 days for felony cases and 72 days for misdemeanors. In 1987-88, the median age of felony cases at disposition was 86 days, and the median age at disposition for misdemeanor cases was 70 days. The number of criminal cases disposed of by jury trial in the superior courts decreased from 3,111 in 1987-88 to 2,830 in 1988-89, a decrease of 9.0%. As in past years, the proportion of total criminal cases disposed by jury was small, 3.7% in 1987- 88 compared to 3.0% in 1988-89. However, the relatively small number of cases disposed by jury requires a great proportion of the superior court time and resources devoted to handling the criminal caseload. In contrast, in 1988-89 a majority (51,349 or 54.3%) of criminal case dispositions in superior courts were processed on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a trial. This percentage represents a slight increase from the proportion of guilty plea dispositions reported for 1987-88 (53.6%). "Dismissal by district attorney" accounted for a significant percentage of all criminal case dispositions during 1988-89, a total of 26,109 cases, or 27.6% of all dispositions. 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 criminal cases disposed of in the superior courts was 5,962 cases less than the total number of cases filed in 1988-89. Consequently, the number of criminal cases pending in superior court increased from 30,315 at the beginning of the fiscal year, to a total pending at year's end of 36,277, an increase of 19.7%. The median age of pending felony cases in the superior courts increased from 79 days on June 30, 1988, to 91 days on June 30, 1989. The median age of pending misdemeanors remained about the same, 78 days on June 30, 1988, compared to 79 days on June 30, 1989. In the district courts, a total of 1,702,723 criminal cases and infractions were filed during 1988-89. This total consisted of 467,644 criminal motor vehicle cases, 678,189 infraction cases, and 556,890 criminal non-motor vehicle cases. A comparison of total filings in 1988-89 with total filings in 1987-88 (1,542,962) reveals an increase in district court criminal and infraction filings of 159,761 cases, or 10.4%. Filings of non-motor vehicle cases rose by 42, 1 80 cases (8.2%), from 5 1 4,7 1 cases in 1987-88 to 556,890 cases in 1988-89. Filings of motor vehicle plus infraction cases increased by 117,581 cases (11.4%), from 1,028,252 in 1987-88 to 1,145,833 in 1988-89. Total dispositions of motor vehicle and infraction cases in the district courts amounted to 1 , 1 1 2, 1 20 cases during 1 988-89 (447,517 motor vehicle dispositions and 664,603 infraction dispositions). As in prior years, a substantial portion of such cases are disposed by waiver of appearance and entry of pleas of guilty (or "responsibility" in infraction cases) before a clerk or magistrate. During 1988-89, 544,036 (48.9%) of motor vehicle and infraction cases were disposed by waiver. This substantial number of cases did not, of course, require action by the district attorneys' offices and should not be regarded as 41 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 having been a part of the district attorneys' caseload. The remaining 568.084 infraction and motor vehicle cases (224,966 infraction and 343.1 18 motor vehicle cases) were disposed by means other than waiver. This balance was 80.696 cases (or 16.6%) more than the 487.388 non-waiver motor vehicle and infraction dispositions in 1987-88. With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case disposi-tions, a total of 535.502 such cases were disposed of in district courts in 1988-89. 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 196.979 cases, or 36.8% of the dispositions were by guilty pleas. An additional 146,559 cases, or 27.4% of the total were disposed of by prosecutor dismissal. The remaining cases were disposed of by waiver (10.4%), trial (7.5%), as a felony probable cause matter (9.6%), or by other means (8.4%). During 1988-89, the median age at disposition of non-motor vehicle criminal cases was 30 days, the same as the median age at disposition for these cases in 1987-88. During 1988-89, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle cases in the district courts exceeded dispositions by 2 1 ,388 cases. The number of non-motor vehicle criminal cases pending at year's end was 1 1 5,865, compared with a total of 94,477 that were pending at the beginning of the year, an increase of 21,388 (22.6%) in the number of pending cases. The median age for pending non-motor vehicle cases was 58 days on June 30, 1989, compared to 57 days on June 30, 1988. Additional information on the criminal caseloads in superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this Report. 42 CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT (As of June 30, 1989) 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 Dorothy Pate 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 O. 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 Nora H. Hargrove Iredell Angelia T. Roberts Yadkin Harold J. Long Jackson Frank Watson, Jr. Yancey F. Warren Hughes 43 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The Clerks of Superior Court Association of Clerks of Superior Court (Officers as of June 30, 1989) James L. Carr, Durham County President Ray Elingburg, Buncombe County First Vice President Judy Arledge, Polk County Second Vice President C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr., Scotland County Secretary Georgia L. Brown, Harnett County Treasurer James L. Carr 44 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 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 administrative 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 proceedings" as adoptions, condemnations of private property under the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings to establish boundaries, fore-closures, and certain proceedings to administer the estates of minors and incompetent adults. The right of appeal from the clerks' judgments in such cases lies to the superior court. The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and other process necessary to execute the judgments entered in the superior and district courts of the county. For certain offenses, the clerk is authorized to accept defendants' waivers of appearance and pleas of guilty or admissions of responsibility and to impose fines in accordance with a schedule established 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 Administrative Office of the Courts. In most counties, the clerk continues to perform certain functions related to preparation of civil case calendars, and in many counties, the clerk's staff assists the district attorney in preparing criminal case calendars as well. Policy and oversight responsibility for civil case calendaring is vested in the State's senior resident superior court judges and chief district court judges. However, day-to-day civil calendar preparation is the clerk's responsibility in all districts except those served by trial court administrators. Expenditures A total of $55,873,693 was expended in 1988-89 for the operation of the 100 clerk of superior court offices. In addition to the salaries and other expenses of the clerks and their staffs, this total includes expenditures for jurors' fees, and witness expenses. Total expenditures for clerk's offices in 1988-89 amounted to 3 1 .6% of the General Fund expenditures for the operations of the entire Judicial Department. 1988-89 Caseload During 1988-89, estate case filings totalled 46,992, which represents a 4.4% increase over the 45,013 cases filed in 1987- 88. Estate case dispositions totalled 44,609 cases in 1 988-89, or 3.1% more than the previous year's total of 43,288. A total of 46,405 special proceedings was filed before the 100 clerks of superior courts in 1988-89. This is an increase of 4,524 cases (10.8%) from the 41,881 filings in the previous fiscal year. Special proceedings dispositions totalled 41,203 cases, or 8.6% more than the previous year's total of 37,95 1 . 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 1988-89 year was 1 18,188 and the total number of district court filings, not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital commitment hearings, was 2,203,743. More detailed information on the estates and special proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this Report. 45 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 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 delinquent or undisciplined behavior by children, to determine whether petitions should be filed. During the 1988-89 year a total of 30.985 complaints were brought to the attention of intake counselors. Of this number, 21,650 (70%) were approved for filing, and 9,335 (30%) were not approved for filing. Probation and aftercare refer to supervision of children in their own communities. Probation is authorized by judicial order. Aftercare service is provided for juveniles after their release from a training school. (Protective supervision is also a form of court-ordered supervision within the community; this service is combined with probation and aftercare.) In 1 988-89 a total of 1 5,739 juveniles were supervised in the probation and aftercare program. Expenditures The Juvenile Services Division is State-funded. The expen-ditures for fiscal year 1988-89 totalled $12,070,842. This was an increase of 6.5% over the 1987-88 expenditures. The 1988- 89 expenditures amounted to 6.8% of all General Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial Depart-ment, 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 Admini-strator's general supervision, each chief court counselor exercises administrative supervision over the operation of the court counseling services in the respective districts. Juvenile Services Division Staff (As of June 30, 1989) 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 46 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Juvenile Services Division (As of June 30, 1989) District Court District Chief Court Counselors District Court District Chief Court Counselors 1 Donald Alexander 2 Joseph A. Paul 3 Eve C. Rogers 4 Ida Ray Miles 5 Phyllis Roebuck 6 John R. Brady 7 Pam Honeycutt 8 Lynn C. Sasser 9 Sherman Wilson 10 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 16B Robert H. Hughes 17Aand 17B Martha M. Lauten 18 J. Manley Dodson 19A and 19B 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 1988-89) Executive Committee Members Carl Duncan, President Shirley Hudler, President-Elect Gina Crawford, Secretary Dennis Cotten, Treasurer Amie Haith, Parliamentarian 1986-89 Richard Alligood Marion Brewer Anne Loy Board Members 1987-90 1988-91 Gloria Newman Blake Belcher Charles Reeves Kathy Dudley Martha Lauten Wayne Arnold Carl Duncan 47 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 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 appro-priate 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 1988-89. a total of 1,252 volunteers were active in the North Carolina program and represented a total of 6,519 abused and neglected children. These volunteers participated in 7.212 court hearings and gave approximately 1 25,000 volunteer hours to casework and training in the State's guardian ad litem program. Expenditures During 1 988-89, total expenditures for the guardian ad litem program amounted to $1,688,951. Of this amount, $576,718 was for program attorney fees and $1,11 2,233 was for program administration. The total included reimbursement of volunteers' expense of $74,001 (covering 107,512 casework hours for 6.519 abused and neglected children). This compares with 1987-88 total expenditures of $1,332,851, with 989 volunteers representing 5,011 children and providing 64,752 casework hours with reimbursement expenses of $41,158. Administration The Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services, established by the General Assembly in 1983, is a division of the Administra-tive Office of the Courts. The Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts appoints the Administrator 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 two regional managers, 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 operational problems in the districts. A coordinator is employed for 30 of the State's 35 district court districts to recruit, screen, train and supervise volunteers. Program coordinators 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 coordinators plan an initial sixteen-hour training course for new volunteers, match children (who are before the courts) with volunteers, implement continued training for experienced guardians, and provide supervision of, and consul-tation and support to, volunteers. Other coordinator respon-sibilities 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. (Coordinators were not employed during 1988- 89 for districts in which the caseload was too small to justify a coordinator position. In those districts, a contract attorney served as the volunteer coordinator.) Guardian Ad Litem Staff (As of June 30, 1989) Virginia C. Weisz, Administrator Cindy Mays, Regional Manager Marilyn Stevens, Regional Manager 4X ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Guardian ad Litem Divison (As of June 30, 1989) istrict Court District Coordinator 1 Veola Spivey 2 Jennifer Leggett 3 Carol Mattocks 4 Jean Hawley 5 Jane Brister 6 Patsey Moseley-Moss 7 Sandra Pittman 8 Claudia Kadis 9 Sarah Sponenberg 10 Lloyd Inman 12 Brownie Smathers 13 Michele Rohde and Betty Buck 14 Cy Gurney District Court District Coordinator 15A Eleanor Ketcham 15B&19B Floyd Wicker 16A & 16B Gladys Pierce 18 Sam Parrish 19A Amy Collins 20 Martha Sue Hall 21 Linda Garrou 22 Pam Ashmore 25 Anglea Phillips 26 Judi Strause 27A & 27B Sindy Waggoner 28 Jean Moore 29 Barbara King 30 Celia Larson 49 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Public Defenders During 1988-89. there were ten public defender offices in North Carolina, serving Defender Districts 3 A, 3B, 12, 15B, 1 6A. 1 6B. 1 8. 26. 27A. 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 defenders are entitled by statute to the numbers of full or part-time assistants and investigators as may be authorized by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Entitlement of Indigents to Counsel A person is "indigent" if "financially unable to secure legal representation." An indigent person is entitled to State-paid legal representation in the proceedings listed in G.S. 7A-451, including any case in which imprisonment or a fine of $500 or more is likely to be adjudged; juvenile proceedings which may result in confinement, transfer to superior court for trial on a felony charge, or termination of parental rights; proceedings alleging mental illness or incapacity which may result in hospitalization or sterilization; extradition proceedings; certain probation or parole revocation hearings; and certain requests for post-conviction relief from a criminal judgment. In defender districts, most representation of indigents is handled by the public defender's office. However, in certain circumstances, such as a potential conflict of interest, the court or the public defender may assign private counsel to represent an indigent. In areas of the state that are not served by a public defender office, indigents are represented by private counsel assigned by the court. Expenditures A total of $4,71 7,45 1 was expended for operation of the ten public defender offices during 1988-89. This was an increase of $630,199 (15.4%) over 1987-88 expenditures of $4,087,252. 1988-89 Caseload The ten public defender offices disposed of cases involving a total of 28,363 defendants during 1988-89. This was an increase of 3,407 defendants, or 13.7%, over the 24,956 defendants represented to disposition during 1987-88. Additional information concerning the operation of these offices is found in Part III of this Annual Report. PUBLIC DEFENDERS (As of June 30, 1989) District 3A (Pitt County) Robert L. Shoffner, Greenville District 3B (Carteret County) Henry C. Boshamer, Beaufort District 12 (Cumberland County) Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville District 15B (Orange and Chatham Counties) John Kirk Osborn, Chapel Hill District 16A (Scotland and Hoke Counties) J. Graham King, Laurinburg District 16B (Robeson County) Angus B. Thompson, II, Lumberton District 18 (Guilford County) Wallace C. Harrelson, Greensboro District 26 (Mecklenburg County) Isabel S. Day, Charlotte District 27A (Gaston County) Rowell C. Cloninger, Jr., Gastonia District 28 (Buncombe County) J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville •Through December 31, 1988, Pitt and Carteret Counties were served by a single public defender office, within judicial district 3. Effective January 1, 1989, the General Assembly established Defender Districts3A (Pitt) and 3B (Carteret). Defender Districts 16Aand 16B were established effective January 1, 1989. Prior to January 1, 1989. Hoke County was served by the public defender office in district 12. "The public defender in District 16B is appointed from a list of not less than three names submitted by written ballot of the licensed attorneys who reside in the district, by the resident superior court judge of Superior Court District 16B other than the senior resident superior court judge. 50 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Public Defenders The Association of Public Defenders (Officers as of June 30, 1989) Wallace C. Harrelson, President Kellum Morris, Vice President Elloise McCain Hassell, Secretary-Treasurer Wallace C. Harrelson 51 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The Office of the Appellate Defender (Staff as of June 30, 1989) Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender Assistant Appellate Defenders M. Patricia DeVine David W. Dorey Staples S. Hughes Teresa McHugh Mark D. Montgomery Daniel R. Pollitt M. Gordon Widenhouse Constance H. Everhart The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a State-funded program on October 1, 1981. (Prior to that date, appellate defender services were funded by a one-year federal grant.) The 1985 General Assembly made permanent the Appellate Defender Office by repealing its expiration provision. In accord with the assignments made by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the Appellate Defender and staff to provide criminal defense appellate services to indigent persons who are appealing their convictions to the N.C. Supreme Court, the N.C. Court of Appeals, or to Federal courts. The Office of the Appellate Defender, through a combination of state and federal funding, also provides assistance to attorneys representing defendants in capital cases, and acts as counsel for defendants in other capital trials and post-conviction proceedings. The Appellate Defender is appointed by and carries out the duties of the Office under the general supervision of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may, consistent with the resources available to the Appellate Defender and to insure quality criminal defense services, authorize certain appeals to be assigned to a local public defender office or to private assigned counsel instead of to the Appellate Defender. 1988-89 Caseload The Office of the Appellate Defender accepted appointment in a total of 139 appeals or petitions for writ of certiorari during the 1988-89 year. The Appellate Defender Office filed a total of 1 15 briefs in the North Carolina Court of Appeals and 41 briefs in the Supreme Court of North Carolina during the 1988-89 year. Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr. 52 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The North Carolina Courts Commission (Members as of June 30, 1989) Appointed by the Governor Johnathan L. Rhyne, Jr., Lincolnton, Chairman Member, N.C. House of Representatives Clyde M. Roberts, Marshall Garland N. Yates, Asheboro District Attorney Harold J. Long, Yadkinville Clerk of Court Dan R. Simpson, Morganton Member, N.C. State Senate Appointed by President of the Senate (Lieutenant Governor) Anthony E. Rand, Fayetteville Member, N.C. Senate Russell J. Hollers, Troy Henson P. Barnes, Goldsboro Member, N.C. Senate Alfred M. Goodwin, Louisburg
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Title | North Carolina courts: annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts |
Creator | North Carolina. Administrative Office of the Courts. |
Date | 1989 |
Subjects |
North Carolina. Judicial Dept.--Periodicals North Carolina. Administrative Office of the Courts--Periodicals Courts--North Carolina--Periodicals Court administration--North Carolina--Periodicals Judicial statistics--North Carolina--Periodicals |
Place | North Carolina, United States |
Time Period | (1945-1989) Post War/Cold War period |
Description | Issued by the North Carolina Judicial Dept; |
Publisher | Raleigh, N.C. : N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts, [2007]- |
Agency-Current | North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, Judicial Department |
Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
Physical Characteristics | [a]: v. ;[c]: 28 cm. |
Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
Type | text |
Language | English |
Format | Annual reports |
Digital Characteristics-A | 13706KB; 280 p. |
Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Title Replaces | North Carolina. Administrative Office of the Courts. North Carolina judicial branch,... annual report |
Audience | All |
Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_law_nccourts1989.pdf |
Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_serial_law\images_master\ |
Full Text | . JUM S3 m ffiovtl] (Earoltna (Exmrte ISSS-8S JVnnual ^Report of tfye JVommtstrattOe ©fftce of tije Courts The Cover: The Wilkes County Courthouse in Wilkesboro, North Carolina was completed in 1 903. It is one of few surviving Beaux-Arts Neo-Classical Revival courthouses designed at the turn of the century by Charlotte, North Carolina architects. The three-story central core is fronted by a columned Ionic portico, crowned with a narrow oblong dome. Details include foliate scrolls in the portico's tympanum, bullseye windows in the base of the dome, segmental arched windows, and handsome wooden staircases rising at either side of the front entrance. Wilkes County was formed in 1 777 with Wilkesboro (originally called Mulberry Field) as the seat. NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 1988-89 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-third Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1, 1988 — June 30, 1989. Fiscal year 1988-89 marks the fifth consecutive year with significant increases in filings and dispositions in both the Superior and District Courts. During 1988-89, as compared to 1987-88, total case filings increased by 11.8% in Superior Court and by 9.9% in District Court; dispositions increased by 10.4% in Superior Court and by 10.3% 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 July 1990 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/sevenwisemenofco1989gumm TABLE OF CONTENTS Parti The 1988-89 Judicial Year in Review The 1988-89 Judicial Year in Review 1 Part II Court System Organization and Operations in 1988-89 Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 7 The Present Court System 9 Organization and Operations The Supreme Court 13 The Court of Appeals 24 Map of Judicial Divisions and Superior Court Districts 28 Map of District Court Districts 29 Map of Prosecutorial Districts 30 The Superior Courts 31 The District Courts 34 District Attorneys 40 Clerks of Superior Court 43 Juvenile Services Division 46 Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services 48 Public Defenders 50 Appellate Defender 52 The North Carolina Courts Commission 53 The Judicial Standards Commission 55 Part III Court Resources in 1988-89 Judicial Department Finances Appropriations 59 Expenditures 62 Receipts 64 Distribution of Receipts 65 Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 68 Judicial Department Personnel 76 Part IV Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1988-89 Trial Courts Case Data 79 Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 83 District Court Division Caseflow Data 175 Tables, Charts and Graphs Part II Court System Organization and Operations in 1988-89 Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the Present Court System 9 Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts 12 The Supreme Court of North Carolina 13 Supreme Court. Caseload Inventory 15 Supreme Court. Appeals Filed 16 Supreme Court. Petitions Filed 16 Supreme Court, Caseload Types 17 Supreme Court. Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage 18 Supreme Court, Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 18 Supreme Court. Disposition of Appeals 19 Supreme Court, Manner of Disposition of Appeals 20 Supreme Court, Type of Disposition of Petitions 20 Supreme Court. Appeals Docketed and Disposed of, 1983-84—1988-89 21 Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed, 1983-84—1988-89 22 Supreme Court, Processing Time for Disposed Cases 23 The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 24 Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 26 Court of Appeals, Manner of Case Dispositions 26 Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1983-84—1988-89 27 Map of Judicial Divisions and Superior Court Districts 28 Map of District Court Districts 29 Map of Prosecutorial Districts 30 Judges of Superior Court 31 Special Judges and Emergency Judges of Superior Court 32 District Court Judges 34 District Attorneys 39 Clerks of Superior Court 43 Chief Court Counselors — Juvenile Services Division 47 Guardian Ad Litem Division Coordinators 49 Public Defenders 50 Appellate Defenders 52 The North Carolina Courts Commission 53 The Judicial Standards Commission 55 Part III Court Resources in 1988-89 General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies and Judicial Department 59 General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies and Judicial Department 60 Tables, Charts and Graphs General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of All State Agencies and Judicial Department, 1982-83—1988-89 61 General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations 62 Judicial Department Expenditures 63 Judicial Department Receipts 64 Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 65 Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 66 Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 69 State Mental Health Hospital Commitment Hearings 70 Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem Cases and Expenditures 71 Judicial Department Personnel 76 Part IV Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1988-89 Superior Courts, Caseload Trends 84 Superior Courts, Caseload 85 Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 86 Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Trends 87 Superior Courts, Civil Case Filings By Case-Type 88 Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory 89 Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition 94 Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, By County 95 Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Pending 102 Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Disposed 107 Superior Courts, Caseload Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 112 Superior Courts, Filings and Dispositions For Estates and Special Proceedings 113 Superior Courts, Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases 118 Superior Courts, Criminal Case Filings By Case-Type 119 Superior Courts, Caseload Inventory for Criminal Cases 1 20 Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies 126 Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies, By District and County 127 Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors 135 Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors, By District and County 136 Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Pending, By District and County 144 Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Disposed, By District and County 158 District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 1 76 District Courts, Caseload Trends 177 District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 178 District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Cases 179 District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Filings By Case-Type 1 80 District Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory 181 District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 186 District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, By District and County 1 87 District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Pending, By District and County 197 District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Disposed, By District and County 202 District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/Transfer Cases Pending, By District and County 207 in Tables, Charts and Graphs District Courts. Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/Transfer Cases Disposed, By District and County 212 District Courts. Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 217 District Courts. Matters Alleged in Juvenile Petitions, By District and County 220 District Courts. Adjudicatory Hearings For Juvenile Matters, By District and County 225 District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Infractions and Criminal Cases 232 District Courts. Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 233 District Courts. Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory, By District and County 238 District Courts. Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 243 District Courts. Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition, By District and County 244 District Courts. Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Pending, By District and County 250 District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Disposed, By District and County 256 District Courts. Infraction Case Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 262 IV PARTI THE 1988-1989 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW THE 1988-89 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, 1988 and ended June 30, 1989. districts, provides for a new district court judge for new District Court District 6B, and a district attorney for new Prosecutorial District 6A. The Workload of the Courts Case filings in the Supreme Court during 1988-89 totaled 177, compared with 145 filings during 1987-88. A total of 447 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, compared with 635 in 1987-88; and 71 petitions were allowed, compared with 67 in 1987-88. For the Court of Appeals for 1988-89, case filings were 1,418 compared with 1,351 for the 1987-88 year. Petitions filed in 1988-89 totaled 385, compared with 446 during the 1987-88 year. More detailed data on the appellate courts is included in Part II of this Annual Report. In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal) increased by 1 1 .8% to a total of 1 1 8, 1 88 in 1 988-89, compared with 1 05,704 in 1 987-88. Superior court case dispositions also increased, to a total of 111,278, compared with 100,808 in 1987-88. As case filings during the year exceeded case dispositions, the total number of cases pending at the end of the year increased by 6,910. Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital commitment hearings, the statewide total of district court filings (civil and criminal) during 1988-89 was 2,203,743, an increase of 199,296 (9.9%) from 1987-88 filings of 2,004,447 cases. During 1988-89, a total of 678,189 infraction cases were filed along with a total of 467,644 criminal motor vehicle cases, for a combined total of 1 , 1 45,833 cases. This combined total is an increase of 1 1 7,58 1 cases (11 .4%) above the 1 ,028,252 cases filed during 1987-88. During 1988-89, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle cases in the district courts increased by 42,180 (8.2%) to 556,890, compared with 514,710 during 1987-88. Filings of civil magistrate cases in the district courts increased by 30,693 (11.1%), to 308,029 during 1 988-89 compared with 277,336 during 1987-88. Operations of the superior and district courts are summarized in Part II of this Report, and detailed information on the caseloads is presented in Part IV for the 100 counties, and for the judicial and prosecutorial districts. 1989 Legislative Highlights Redistricting District Court District 6 (effective December 1, 1989) and Prosecutorial District 6 (effective September 1, 1989) are divided into District Court and Prosecutorial Districts 6A (Halifax County) and 6B (Northampton, Bertie, and Hertford Counties) (Chapter 795, Sections 23 and 24). As a result, Superior Court, District Court, and Prosecutorial Districts 6A and 6B will be coterminous. Effective September 1, 1989, District Court District 19A is divided into District Court Districts 19A (Cabarrus County) and 19C (Rowan County) (Chapter 795, Section 23). As a result, Superior Court and District Court Districts 19A and 19C will be coterminous. Chapter 795 allocates existing personnel among these Additional Seat of District Court Effective September 1 , 1 989, an additional seat of district court is authorized for District Court District 11, in Clayton (Johnston County) (Chapter 795, Section 23). Court Costs and Fees Effective August 15, 1989, court fees to be collected for support of the General Court of Justice are increased by $ 1 in civil and criminal cases in superior and district court (Chapter 786, amending G.S. 7A-304(a) and 7A-305(a)). In superior court, total costs (including facilities and other fees) are increased to $60 in civil cases and $75 in criminal cases. In district court, the increases are to $45 in civil cases, $50 in criminal cases and infractions, and $29 in small claims cases assigned to a magistrate. Chapter 664, effective October 1, 1989, establishes a new fee of $15 under G.S. 7A-304(a), to be paid by convicted defendants who were released to the supervision of an agency providing pretrial release services. The fee is remitted to the county which provided the services. Chapter 719, effective October 1, 1989, amends the statute governing collection of costs in estates, G.S. 7A-307, to specify that no costs shall be assessed in certain small estate cases. Jurisdictional Amount in Small Claims Cases Effective October 1, 1989, the jurisdictional amount of civil small claims cases is increased from $1,500 to $2,000 (Chapter 311). Magistrate Jurisdiction in Littering, Infraction, and Estate Cases Effective October 1, 1989, the jurisdiction of magistrates was expanded in three areas. The cases in which a magistrate may accept a guilty plea and enter judgment under G.S. 7A- 273 were expanded to include littering offenses as directed by the chief district court judge (Chapter 343). Amendments to G.S. 7A-273(1) will allow magistrates to accept admission of responsibility and enter judgment in infractions cases in which the maximum penalty is $50 or less (Chapter 763); this statute presently covers misdemeanors in which the fine cannot exceed $50, and the amendment conforms to the 1986 decriminaliza-tion of minor traffic misdemeanors to "infractions." Finally, in certain estate cases under G.S. Chapter 30, magistrates may perform responsibilities related to the valuation of property assigned to a surviving spouse; previously, such duties were performed by two persons qualified to act as jurors (Chapter 11). Authorities of Clerks, Assistants, and Deputies The General Assembly amended G.S. 7A- 102(b), effective June 26, 1989, to promote efficiency when a superior or district THE 1988-89 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW court case is transferred from one county to another. In such cases, with consent of the clerks in both counties and the presiding judge, an assistant or deputy clerk from the original county may perform all the functions of the office of the Clerk in the county to which the case was transferred (Chapter 445). Chapter 493. effective June 28, 1989, makes two changes relating to when a clerk may decide not to hear a case. First, the reasons for disqualification under G.S. 7A-104 were expanded to specify that a clerk may disqualify him or herself in circumstances that justify disqualification or recusal by a judge. Second, in disputes between the County Board of Commissioners and the Board of Education, that are referred to a clerk under G.S. 115C-431(b), the clerk must transfer the matter to superior court if the clerk determines that the dispute cannot be arbitrated. Mandatory Civil Arbitration Following favorable experience in a pilot project for court-ordered nonbinding arbitration in civil cases, the General Assembly authorized the Supreme Court to adopt permanent rules governing such procedures statewide (Chapter 301, adding new G.S. 7A-37.1, effective July 1, 1989). Applicable to claims of $15,000 or less, the procedures must preserve a party's rights to trial de novo and jury trial. Subject to available funding. AOC is directed to implement (or terminate) arbitra-tion in such areas where the AOC Director and the senior resident superior court judge or chief district court judge conclude that the legislative objectives are (or are not) being accomplished. The objectives include greater efficiency, economy, and satisfaction. Child Custody and Visitation Mediation Favorable experience in a pilot project involving Districts 26 and 27A (Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties) led to enactment of new Article 39A in G.S. Chapter 7A, directing AOC to phase in programs statewide for mandatory mediation in cases involving child custody or visitation disputes (Chapter 795, Sec. 15). Under the procedures, unless the court grants a waiver based on statutory criteria, custody and visitation disputes must be referred to a mediator. Mediators must have the educational, training, and other qualifications specified by statute or AOC. The mediation, which is confidential, is intended to facilitate a cooperative, nonadversary 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. Funding was provided to continue the programs in the two pilot districts, and to establish one additional program in each fiscal year of the 1 989-9 1 biennium. Child Support Enforcement The General Assembly made several changes to strengthen and streamline the laws governing determination and enforce-ment of child support. Under Chapter 529, effective October 1, 1989 and until July 1 . 1 990, the "advisory" guidelines previously promulgated by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges under G.S. 50-1 3.4 will become "presumptive" guidelines, meaning that in the absence of special circumstances the amount of child support to be awarded by the court must be the amount set by the guidelines. The Conference of Chief District Court Judges is directed to prescribe uniform statewide presumptive guide-lines to be effective July 1, 1990, and to prescribe criteria for judges to apply when determining whether circumstances in a particular case justify deviation from the guidelines. The legislation includes requirements for public dissemination of proposed guidelines prior to their effectiveness. Chapter 601, effective October 1, 1989, amends G.S. 11- 1 36.3 et. seq to provide that in IV-D child support cases income withholding is to be ordered immediately upon entry or modification of a child support order, or at request of the person to whom support is to be paid. The availability of income withholding in non-IV-D cases was also expanded, and is now available if the obligor has been delinquent or erratic in making payments (previously the obligor had to be at least one month in arrearage). Additional amendments affecting child support include Chapter 479 (amending G.S. 50- 13.9(d), effective January 1, 1990), which makes sending a notice of delinquency prior to issuing an enforcement order in non-IV-D cases subject to the clerk's discretion if a notice of delinquency was sent during the prior 12 months; Chapter 490 (amending G.S. 110-130.1, effective June 28, 1989), which establishes a uniform $10 application fee for the services of the Department of Human Resources, and repeals certain provisions for recovering costs from low-income applicants; and Chapter 665 (effective October 1 , 1 989), which makes state retirement subject to child support withholding. Self-Representation in Domestic Violence Cases The General Assembly enacted specific statutory authority for a domestic violence victim to proceed with a civil action without assistance of counsel (Chapter 461, effective January 1, 1990). The Clerk must provide all necessary forms (to be developed by AOC), set hearing dates, and effect service of the summons, complaint, and other papers through appropriate law enforcement agencies upon payment of the service fee. Juvenile Code Revisions The 1989 Session made amendments to the Juvenile Code relating to a juvenile's privacy interests, custody, and placement. New subsection G.S. 7A-676(h) (added by Chapter 186, effective July 1, 1989) provides procedures for expunction of court and law enforcement records, on petition of a juvenile before or after reaching age 16, when a petition that alleged delinquent or undisciplined behavior was dismissed. The General Assembly expanded the court's authority to order a juvenile's parents to participate in medical, psycho-logical, or other treatment (Chapter 218, effective October 1, 1989). Under new subsection G.S. 7A-650(b2), if required for the juvenile's best interests, the court may order a parent to undergo such treatment as a condition to returning legal or physical custody to the parent. If the parent is unable to pay the costs of treatment, the court may charge the costs to the county. Chapter 235 (effective October 1, 1989) amends the prerelease planning process that is required when a juvenile THE 1988-89 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW who was committed to the Division of Youth Services is ready for release. The amendments require consideration of a transitional placement in any program of the Division of Youth Services or AOC. Chapter 124 (effective October 1, 1989) amends G.S. 7A- 575 to grant the court authority to detain a juvenile in secure custody when an SBI computer check reveals that there is a secure custody order for the juvenile on file in another county. Indigent Access to Civil Justice The General Assembly appropriated $1,000,000 for each year of the 1989-91 biennium to help pay for legal represen-tation of indigent persons in civil cases (Chapter 795, Sec. 25, effective August 12, 1989). The funds were appropriated to the North Carolina State Bar, for distribution to geographically based programs of the nonprofit Legal Services of North Carolina Corporation (LSNC). (The LSNC is also funded by the N.C. State Bar Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account program, and by federal funds under the U.S. Legal Services Corporation Act.) New section G.S. 7A-474.3 specifies types of civil cases for which state appropriation may be used (including cases involving family violence, spouse abuse, social security and other benefits, foreclosure actions against farmers, and child support), and cases for which state appropriation may not be used (including criminal cases, cases involving abortions, claims of agriculture employees regarding terms of employ-ment, and claims of prisoners regarding a term of incarceration). Indigent Persons' Attorney Fee Fund For the 1989-91 biennium, the General Assembly continued the allotment system, first enacted for 1988-89, under which funds for the fees of attorneys assigned to represent indigents are allotted to each district or county in proportion to each district's or county's assigned counsel caseload during the prior year (Chapter 500, Section 68). Speedy Trial Act Repealed Effective October 1, 1989, Chapter 688 repeals the Speedy Trial Act. Under the Act, a criminal defendant in superior court could obtain dismissal of the charges if the case did not come to trial within 1 20 days, unless the delay was excusable for reasons specified in the Act. (A criminal defendant has a Constitutional right to a "speedy trial" under both the North Carolina Constitution, Article I, Sections 18 and 21, and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.) Chapter 688 also enacts criteria which, at a minimum, the judge must consider under G.S. 15A-952 when determining whether to grant a continuance. The factors include the nature and complexity of the case, and whether the case involves physical or sexual abuse of a victim under age 16 whose well-being would be adversely affected by delay. Rights of Victims and Witnesses The General Assembly extended application of the Fair Treatment for Victims and Witnesses Act (Chapter 596, effective October 1, 1989, amending G.S. 15A-824 and -825). In addition to cases involving felonies, the Act will cover cases involving serious misdemeanors as determined in the sole discretion of the district attorney. Additional information to be given each victim and witness includes information about plea bargaining procedures; notice of the right to be present at the entire trial, unless sequestered by the judge; and the right to ask the district attorney to prevent disclosure of the victim's or witness' home address. Provisions requiring notice in certain cases of an offender's escape or scheduled release from custody are made subject to written request of the victim. Chapter 679 (effective July 26, 1989) and Chapter 322 (effective June 15, 1989) amend the Crime Victim's Compen-sation Act, G.S. Chapter 1 5B. The amendments limit compen-sation to victims, dependents, and third persons who provided voluntary assistance to a victim; expand the investigative powers of the Crime Victim's Compensation Commission; make compensation available to victims of an impaired driving offense; extend the right to claim compensation to North Carolina residents injured in a state that does not have a victim compensation program; and limit recovery to economic loss. Pretrial Release The General Assembly amended G.S. 7A-534(a) to allow a judicial official to impose conditions of pretrial release (such as restrictions on travel or conduct) on offenders who are released on secured bond (Chapter 259, effective October 1, 1989). Under present law, such authority extends only to forms of pretrial release other than secured bond. Substance Abuse Assessment of DWI Offenders Effective January 1, 1990, the substance abuse assessment required under G.S. 20-179(m) for certain offenders convicted of impaired driving will be required as a condition of probation for all offenders who are placed on probation (Chapter 691). This change has been in effect as a pilot project in ten counties since 1988. Present law in nonpilot counties requires such assessment only for second offenders and offenders who refused to take a blood alcohol test or who tested . 1 5 or more. Effective January 1, 1990, in all counties, new subsection G.S. 20-179(t) will require, in addition, substance abuse assessment for all offenders who did not receive probation, as a condition to having a revoked driver's license reissued. Additional amendments include provisions for requiring the defendant to pay the fees of the assessment or treatment before a driver's license may be reissued (effective July 28, 1989, in pilot counties, and July 1, 1990, statewide); and procedures by which the defendant may obtain court review of an assessment facility's refusal to certify completion of the assessment program (effective July 28, 1989, statewide). HIV (AIDS) Testing Chapter 499 amends G.S. 15A-534.3, effective October 1, 1989, requiring a test for the HIV and Hepatitis B viruses to be ordered for a criminal defendant at the time of first appearance if required by county health officials and if there is probable cause to believe that the defendant exposed someone to those viruses. THE 1988-89 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW New and Expanded Drug Offenses Chapters 672 and 690. amending G.S. 90-95(h) effective October 1. 1989. create the felony offenses, respectively, of trafficking in amphetamines and trafficking in methampheta-mines. Punishments range from prison sentences of at least seven years to at least 35 years and minimum fines ranging from S25.000 to S250.000. depending upon the quantity of drugs involved. Chapter 694 amends G.S. 14-17, effective October 1, 1989, making distribution of cocaine which results in death, second degree murder. Chapter 641 amends G.S. 90-95(d), effective October 1. 1989. making possession of any amount of cocaine a felony. Prison Population Stabilization Chapter 1 of the 1989 Session Laws increased the maximum number 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. The prison cap in G.S. 148-4.1 was raised, effective February 1, 1989. from 17,460 to 17,640. The amount of time the Parole Commission is given to reduce the prison population is raised from 60 days to 90 days. This legislation prohibits the granting of parole, merely to meet the prison cap, to certain sex and drug offenders, and expands the eligibility of certain other offenders for community service parole under G.S. 15A- 137 1(h) and 15A-1380.2(h). Emergency Judges The number of years of creditable service that a retired judge must have under G.S. 7A-52(a), in order to qualify to hold court as an emergency judge, was reduced from eight to five years (Chapter 116, effective May 22, 1989). Salaries Funds were appropriated by the 1989 Session for a six percent pay raise for all officials and employees of the Judicial Department for each year of the 1989-91 biennium. Amendments to G.S. 7A-171.1(a), effective July 1, 1989, make the salary credits for magistrates who have advanced degrees or specified prior relevant experience applicable to all magistrates. Under prior law, the credits applied only to beginning, full-time magistrates. The table in G.S. 7A-101(a) that governs the salaries of clerks of superior court, according to county population, was amended (Chapter 799, Section 27). As a result of deleting the lowest population category, effective July 1, 1989, clerks in counties with a population of less than 30,000 will be paid at the next higher pay scale. New Positions The 1989 Session of the General Assembly appropriated or authorized the use of funds for the following new positions during fiscal 1989-90: two district court judgeships, one for District 16A effective July 1, 1989, and the other for new District 6B, to be appointed by the Governor effective December 1, 1989, with election to a four-year term in 1990; two court reporters for superior court and four court reporters for district court; two secretaries for superior court judges; ten secretaries for chief district court judges who at present do not have secretaries; ten magistrates to be allocated in accordance with G.S. 7A-171; 19 assistant district attorneys, assigned to Districts 3B, 4, 5, 7, 10, 1 1, 15A, 15B, two in 16A, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27A, and 28; 14 secretaries for district attorney offices; 10 victim/witness assistant positions; 36 deputy clerks, plus up to $670,000 of funds appropriated as salaries for temporary deputy clerks to establish full- or part-time perma-nent positions; authority to use up to $218,055 from the indigent persons attorney fee fund for five new assistant public defenders; two secretaries for public defender offices; an assistant to special counsel in the 10th District; 22 juvenile court counselor positions and six secretaries; and upgrade or establishment of 32 guardian ad litem positions. For the 1990-91 fiscal year, subject to change in the 1990 Session, the 1989 Session appropriated or authorized the use of funds for the following additional positions: six new resident superior court judgeships, and two special judgeships converted to regular judgeships, allocated to Districts 3 A, 5, 1 1 , 1 3, 1 7 A, 20A, 25A, and 29, to be elected in the 1990 elections, with terms commencing January 1, 1991, and terms ending concurrently with the terms of other superior court judge(s) in these respective districts; 15 district court judgeships, one effective July 1, 1990, for District 9, to be appointed by the Governor and with election for a four-year term in 1992, and the other 14 district court judgeships effective December 3, 1990, to be filled in the 1990 elections, for Districts 4, 5, 7, 10, 1 1 , 1 2, 1 7B, 1 8, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27B, and 28; six court reporters for superior court; two secretaries for superior court judges; five magistrates, to be allocated in accordance with G.S. 7A-171; one case management assistant each for trial court admini-strators in the 10th and 26th districts; eight assistant district attorneys, for Districts 1, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17B, 27B, and 30; five secretaries for district attorney offices; two victim and witness assistant positions; 18 deputy clerks, plus authorization to use up to $670,000 of funds appropriated as salaries for temporary deputy clerks to establish full- or part-time permanent positions; authorization to use up to $261,615 from the indigent persons attorney fee fund for five new assistant public defenders; one secretary and one paralegal for public defender offices; seven juvenile court counselor positions; and four new guardian ad litem staff positions. Total Appropriation The 1 989 Session of the General Assembly appropriated a total of $200,599,095 to the Judicial Department for the 1989-90 fiscal year. For the 1990-91 fiscal year, subject to revision by the 1990 Session, the total appropriated for the Judicial Department is $204,475,395. PART II COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS • Historical Development of Court System • Present Court System • Organization and Operations in 1988-89 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 1 700 the royal governor established a General (or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute developed over the appointment of associate justices. The Assembly conceded to the King the right to name the chiefjustice but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the power to appoint the associate justices. Other controversies developed 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 1 746, which contained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary court system) and periods of stalemate and anarchy after such enactments were nullified by royal authority. A more elaborate system was framed by legislation in 1767 to last five years. It was not renewed because of persisting disagreement between local and royal partisans. As a result, North Carolina was without higher courts until after Independence (Battle, 847). At the lower court level during the colonial period, judicial and county government administrative functions were com-bined 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 recommenda-tion of the General Assembly, and they were paid out of fees charged litigants. On the lowest level of the judicial system, magistrate courts of limited 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 interchangeable during the period immediately following the Revolution. One of the most vexing governmental problems confronting the new State of North Carolina was its judiciary. "From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary caused complaint and demands for reform." (Lefler and Newsome, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflicting judge opinions, an insuf-ficient number ofjudges, and lack of means for appeal were all cited as problems, although the greatest weakness was con-sidered to be the lack of a real Supreme Court. In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court of Conference to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the districts. This court was continued and made permanent by subsequent laws. The justices were required to put their opinions in writing to be delivered orally in court. The Court of Conference was changed in name to the Supreme Court in 1805 and authorized to hear appeals in 1810. Because of the influence of the English legal system, however, there was still no conception of an alternative to judges sitting together to hear appeals from cases which they had themselves heard in the districts in panels of as few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 1818, though, an inde-pendent three-judge Supreme Court was created for review of cases decided at the Superior Court level. Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in each county were made mandatory in 1806, and the State was divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the six judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constituting a quorum as before. The County Court of justices of the peace continued during this period as the lowest court and as the agency of local government. After the Civil War Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it more democratic were made in 1868. A primary holdover from the English legal arrangement — the distinction between law and equity proceedings — was abolished. The County Court's control of local government was abolished. Capital offenses were limited to murder, arson, burglary and rape, and the Constitution stated that the aim of punishment was "not only to satisfy justice, but also to reform the offender, and thus prevent crime." The membership of the Supreme Court was raised to five, and the selection of the justices (including the designation of the chiefjustice) and superior court judges (raised in number to 12) was taken from the legislature and given to the voters, although vacancies were to be filled by the governor until the next election. The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — The County Court of which three justices of the peace constituted a quorum — was eliminated. Its judicial responsibilities were divided between the Superior Courts and the individual justices of the peace, who were retained as separate judicial officers with limited jurisdiction. Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 Constitu-tion in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme Court 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 Historical Development Of The North Carolina Court System, Continued in the post-Civil War Constitution, however, were left, and the i udicial structure it had established continued without systema-tic modification through more than half of the 20th century. (A further constitutional amendment approved by the voters in November. 1888. returned the Supreme Court membership to Eve, 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 andjurisdiction. 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 established individually by special legislative acts more than a half-century earlier. Others had been created by general law across the State since 1919. About half were county courts and half were city or township courts. Jurisdiction included misdemeanors (mostly traffic offenses), preliminary hearings and sometimes civil matters. The judges, who were usually part-time, were variously elected or appointed locally. At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's court and some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had similar criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties up to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the peace also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These court officials were compen-sated 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 replacement by a single District Court; the office of justice of the peace was to be abolished, and the newly fashioned position of magistrate would function within the District Court as a subordinate judicial office. Constitutional amendments were introduced in the legisla-ture 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 1 970 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 1 7th 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 1972 to allow for the Supreme Court to censure or remove judges; implementing legislation provides 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 Constitution, 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. Major Sources Battle, Kemp P., An Address on the History ofthe 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 Slate. 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 Original Jurisdiction \ All felony cases; civil I cases in excess of ^ $10,000* SUPERIOR COURTS 77 Judges Final Order of Utilities Commission in General Rate Cases 1 COURT OF APPEALS 12 Judges K / Decisions of Most Administrative Agencies Original Jurisdiction Probate and estates, special proceedings (condemnations, adoptions, partitions, foreclosures, etc.) criminal cases (for trial de novo) V| 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) civil cases I DISTRICT COURTS 162 Judges Clerks of Superior Court (100) Original Jurisdiction Misdemeanor cases not assigned to magistrates; probable cause hearings; civil cases $10,000* or less; juvenile proceedings; domestic relations; involuntary commitments Magistrates (644) Original Jurisdiction Accept certain misdemeanor guilty pleas and admissions of responsibility to infractions; worthless check misdemeanors $1,000 or less; small claims $1,500 or less ( 1 ) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in cases involving constitutional questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may review Court of Appeals decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. (2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. (3) As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in first degTee 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). THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution establishes the General Court of Justice which "shall constitute a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction, operation, and administration, and shall consist of an Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a District Court Division." The Appellate Division 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. 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 35 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," stating that "The General Assem-bly shall have no power to deprive the judicial department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the government, nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other than as permitted by this Article." The terms, "General Court of Justice" and "Judicial Depart-ment" are almost, but not quite, synonymous. It may be said that the Judicial Department encompasses all of the levels of court designated as the General Court of Justice plus all administrative and ancillary services within the Judicial Department. The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal between the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of courts are illustrated in the chart on the previous page. Criminal Cases Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original jurisdiction of the district courts. Some misdemeanor offenses are tried by magistrates, who are also empowered 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 misdemeanors are by district court judges, who also hold preliminary, "probable cause" hearings in felony cases. Trial of felony cases is within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the district court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by jury available at the district court level; appeal from the 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, condemnations under the authority of eminent domain, and foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the superior court. The district courts have original jurisdiction in juvenile proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for 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 $1,500 or less and the plaintiff in the case so requests, the chief district court judge may assign the case for initial hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates' decisions may be appealed to the district court. Trial by jury for civil cases is available in the district courts; appeal from the judgment of a district court in a civil case is to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of general civil cases where the amount in controversy is more than $10,000. Appeals from decisions of most administrative agencies are first within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in civil cases is to the Court of Appeals. Administration The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of the other courts of the General Court of Justice." (G.S. 7A-32(b)). In addition to this grant of general supervisory power, the North Carolina General Statutes provide certain Judicial Department officials with specific powers and responsibilities for the operation of the court system. The Supreme Court has the responsibility for prescribing rules of practice and procedures for the appellate courts and for prescribing rules for the trial courts to supplement those prescribed by statute. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court designates one of thejudges 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 admini-strative responsibilities vested in Judicial Department 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 35 district court districts from among the elected district court judges of the respective districts. These judges have 10 The Present Court System, Continued 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 statis-tical 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, education 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 administrative services. The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk for both the superior and district courts. Until 1980, the clerk also served as chairman of the county's calendar committee, which set the civil case calendars. Effective July 1, 1980, these committees were eliminated; day-to-day calendaring of civil cases is now done by the clerk of superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in some districts, under the supervision of the senior resident superior court judge and chief district court judge. The criminal case calendars in both superior courts and district courts are set by the district attorney of the respective district. 11 THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts CHIEF JUSTICE and SUPREME COURT 2A Administrative Office of the Courts 4 (36) District Attorneys (44) Senior Resident Judges; (100) Clerks of Superior Court SUPERIOR COURTS (35) 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 35 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. 12 THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA (As of June 30, 1989) 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 ChiefJustices 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 13 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The Supreme Court At the apex of the North Carolina court system is the seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to consider and decide questions of law presented in civil and criminal cases on appeal. The Chief Justice and six associate justices are elected to eight-year terms by the voters of the State. There are two terms of the Supreme Court each year: a Spring Term commencing on the first Tuesday in February and a Fall Term commencing on the first Tuesday in September. The Court does not sit in panels. It sits only en banc, that is, all members sitting on each case. Jurisdiction The only original case jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court is in the censure and removal of judges upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judicial Standards Commis-sion. The Court's appellate jurisdiction includes: - cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals (cases involving substantial constitutional questions and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals); - cases on appeal by right from the Utilities Commission (cases involving final order or decision in a general rate matter); - criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior courts (first degree murder cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to death or life imprisonment); and - cases in which review has been granted in the Supreme Court's discretion. Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly from the trial courts may be granted when delay would likely cause substantial harm or when the workload of the Appellate Division is such that the expeditious administration of justice requires it. However, most appeals are heard only after review by the Court of Appeals. Administration The Supreme Court has general power to supervise and control the proceedings of the other courts of the General Court of Justice. The Court has specific power to prescribe the rules of practice and procedure for the trial court divisions, consistent with any rules enacted by the General Assembly. The schedule of superior court sessions in the 100 counties is approved yearly by the Supreme Court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court, the Librarian of the Supreme Court Library, and the Appellate Division Reporter are appointed by the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and an Assistant Director, who serve at the pleasure of the Chief Justice. He also designates a Chief Judge from among the judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief District Court Judge from among the district judges in each of the State's 35 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 temporary 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 courtjudge 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 Admini-strative Law Judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings. Expenses of the Court, 1988-89 Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 1988- 89 fiscal year amounted to $2,650,035, an increase of 1 2.6% over total 1987-88 expenditures of $2,352,654. Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 1988-89 constituted 1.5% of all General Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. Case Data, 1988-89 A total of 270 appealed cases were before the Supreme Court during the fiscal year, 93 that were pending on July 1, 1988, plus 177 cases filed through June 30, 1989. A total of 1 54 of these cases were disposed of, leaving 1 16 cases pending on June 30, 1989. A total of 531 petitions (requests to appeal) were before the Court during the 1988-89 year, with 397 disposed during the year and 134 pending as of June 30, 1989. The Court granted 71 petitions for review during 1988-89 compared to 67 for 1987-88. More detailed data on the Court's workload are presented on the following pages. 14 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Supreme Court Caseload Inventory July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989 Petitions for Review Civil domestic Juvenile Other civil Criminal Postconviction remedy Administrative agency decision Total Petitions for Review Pending Pending 7/1/88 Filed Disposed 6/30/89 2 14 8 X 6 5 1 48 196 197 47 25 185 144 66 6 41 38 9 3 5 5 3 84 447 397 134 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 I 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 8 30 19 19 23 43 42 24 21 23 14 30 23 33 41 15 5 12 11 6 9 17 12 14 3 10 9 4 3 3 93 177 154 116 16 16 38 38 616 616 4 11 13 2 681 683 15 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 APPEALS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT JULY 1, 1988 — JUNE 30, 1989 CRIMINAL-DEATH CRIMINAL LIFE ADMIN. AGENCY DOMESTIC RELATIONS OTHER CIVIL OTHER CRIMINAL PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT JULY 1, 1988 — JUNE 30, 1989 OTHER CIVIL JUVENILE 1.3% (6) CRIMINAL ADMIN. AGENCY 1.1% (5) DOMESTIC RELATIONS 3.1% (14) POSTCONVICTION 16 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Supreme Court Caseload Types by Superior Court District and Division July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989 Judicial Superior Court Total Death Life Other Civil Other Cases Division District Cases Cases Cases Criminal Cases Cases Disposed I 1 6 1 4 1 3 2 4 3 1 2 3A 5 1 1 2 1 2 3B 5 1 4 1 4A 2 1 1 1 4B 6 3 1 1 1 3 5 10 3 5 1 1 3 6A 5 4 1 1 6B 7 1 2 3 1 4 7A 3 1 2 2 7B-C 2 1 1 2 8A 2 1 1 8B 3 3 1 SUBTOTAL 60 15 22 10 13 25 II 9 5 2 1 2 2 10 49 5 3 3 19 19 25 11 6 1 2 3 4 12 18 3 9 4 2 6 13 2 2 1 14 16 3 2 3 8 8 15A 4 1 3 3 15B 7 1 1 5 5 16A 3 3 16B 8 6 1 1 4 SUBTOTAL 118 25 18 13 42 20 58 III 17A 5 2 1 1 1 11 17B 1 1 18 17 2 3 2 10 11 19A 3 1 1 1 1 19B 3 1 1 1 1 19C 2 2 20A 6 2 2 2 3 20B 2 1 1 2 21 15 7 2 5 1 7 22 8 4 3 1 1 23 6 1 1 2 2 5 SUBTOTAL 68 15 17 9 25 2 32 IV 24 3 2 1 1 25A 5 3 1 1 1 25B 4 3 1 1 26 21 2 2 5 9 3 13 27A 4 1 1 2 2 27B 4 1 1 2 3 28 12 1 4 1 5 1 7 29 9 2 5 1 1 4 30A 2 2 2 30B 5 3 2 5 SUBTOTAL 69 9 20 12 24 4 39 TOTALS 315 64 77 44 104 26 NOTE: Includes life & death sentence cases awaiting Record on Appeal and not yet formally docketed. 154 17 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage in Supreme Court July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989 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 1 73 23 47 26 10 185 1 1 2 187 Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings by the Supreme Court July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989 Granted* Denied 4 4 1 4 44 146 19 119 13 3 2 71 288 Petitions for Review Civil Domestic Juvenile Other Civil Criminal Postconviction Remedy Administrative Agency Decision Total Petitions for Review Other Proceedings Rule 16(b) — Additional Issues Advisory Opinion Rule Amendments Motions Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear Total Other Proceedings •"GRANTED" includes orders allowing relief without accepting the case as a full appeal. Dismissed/ Withdrawn 7 6 25 38 Total Disposed 8 5 197 144 38 5 397 16 38 616 13 683 \H ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Signed Opinions Reversed Total Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed Civil domestic 2 2 Juvenile 1 1 Other civil 15 5 6 19 45 Criminal (death sentence) 8 1 3 1 13 Criminal (life sentence) 31 7 38 Other criminal 4 6 3 13 Postconviction remedy Administrative agency decision 7 7 Totals 67 13 33 119 Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Decisions Reversed Total Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed Civil domestic 2 2 Juvenile Other civil 9 2 11 Criminal (death sentence) Criminal (life sentence) Other criminal 5 1 1 7 Postconviction remedy Administrative agency decision 1 1 2 Totals 17 22 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 1 5 1 3 3 13 19 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF APPEALS IN THE SUPREME COURT JULY 1, 1988-JUNE 30, 1989 DISMISSED/WITHDRAWN OPINIONS PER CURIAM DECISIONS TYPE OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT JULY 1, 1988-JUNE 30, 1989 DENIED GRANTED DISMISSED/WITHDRAWN 20 NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT Appeals Docketed and Disposed of During the Years 1983-84—1988-89 400 IAppeals Docketed Appeals Disposed of 300 N UM B E R O 200 F C A S E S 100 227 200 196 216 145 177 154 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 21 NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years 1983-84—1988-89 800 N I M B I R O F C \ s [ s 600 400 I 200 Petitions Docketed Petitions Allowed 733 547 70 447 67 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 71 1988-89 22 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Supreme Court Processing Time for Disposed Cases (Total time in days from docketing to decision) July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989 Civil domestic Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals Juvenile Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals Other civil Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals Criminal, defendant sentenced to death Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment Other criminal Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals Petitions for review granted that became postconviction remedy cases Administrative agency decision Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative agency decision Total appeals Number (Days) (Days) of Cases Median Mean 1 309 309.0 4 133 136.5 1 156 156.0 19 210 194.6 42 208 223.5 14 499 512.1 41 279 280.6 11 140 178.4 12 201 267.5 9 380 400.4 154 237 269.8 23 THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA* Chief Judge R. A. HEDRICK GERALD ARNOLD HUGH A. WELLS CHARLES L. BECTON CLIFTON E. JOHNSON EUGENE H. PHILLIPS SIDNEY S. EAGLES, JR. Judges SARAH PARKER JACK COZORT ROBERT F. ORR K. EDWARD GREENE JOHN B. LEWIS, JR. FRANK M. PARKER EDWARD B. CLARK ROBERT M. MARTIN Retired Judges CECIL J. HILL E. MAURICE BRASWELL Clerk FRANCIS E. DAIL *Asof30 June 1989 24 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The Court of Appeals The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's inter-mediate 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 Commissioner of Insurance, the Board of State Contract Appeals, the Department of Human Re-sources, the Commissioner of Banks, the Administrator of Savings and Loans, the Governor's Waste Management Board, the Property Tax Commission, and the Utilities Commission (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) recommenda-tion 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 Commission's chair). Such seven-member panel would have sole jurisdiction to act upon the Commission's recommendation. Expenses of the Court, 1988-89 Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during the 1988-89 fiscal year totalled $3,352,986, an increase of 6.2% over 1987-88 expenditures of $3,158,383. Expenditures for the Court of Appeals during 1988-89 amounted to 1.9% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. Case Data, 1988-89 A total of 1 ,4 1 8 appealed cases were filed before the Court of Appeals during the period July 1 , 1 988 - June 30, 1 989. A total of 1 , 1 88 cases were disposed of during the same period. During 1988-89, a total of 385 petitions and 1,435 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. 25 FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989 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 276 622 43 477 1,418 Dispositions 1,188 Petitions Allowed Denied Remanded Total 385 40 345 385 Motions Allowed Denied Remanded Total Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions and Motions 1,029 406 1,435 1,435 3,238 3,008 MANNER OF CASE DISPOSITIONS — COURT OF APPEALS July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989 Cases Disposed by Written Opinion Cases Affirmed 719 Cases Reversed 214 Cases Affirmed In Part, Reversed In Part 101 Other Cases Disposed 154 Total Cases Disposed 1,188 26 FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Fiscal Years 1983-84 Through 1988-89 3000 2500 N U M B E R O F C A S F S 2000 1500 1000 500 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed cases and petitions (not motions) in the Court of Appeals. 27 ON 4^ oo *H On OU o 2 o 00 25 Si t5 .a A 5 2X CZ3 o o U CO e Q o o oo On C3 O 00 29 o1— I c3 O oo O g &h O U oZ 30 JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT* (As of June 30, 1989) FIRST DIVISION District 1 2 3A 3B 4A 4B 5 6A 6B 7A 7B 7C 8A 8B 10A 10B IOC 10D 11 12A 12B 12C 13 14A 14B 15A 15B 16A 16B *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 *Charles B. Winberry, 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 *Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn *D. B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville Gregory A. Weeks, Fayetteville Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville *Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., Durham *Anthony M. Brannon, Durham J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham A. Leon Stanback, Jr., Durham *J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington *F. Gordon Battle, Hillsborough *B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg *Joe Freeman Britt, Lumberton Dexter Brooks, Lumberton 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 21 C William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem 21D James A. Beaty, Jr., Winston-Salem 22 *Preston Cornelius, Mooresville Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville 23 *Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro 24 FOURTH DIVISION *Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone 25A *Claude S. Sitton, Morganton 25B *Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 26A W. Terry Sherrill, Charlotte Shirley L. Fulton, Charlotte 26B *Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte Kenneth A. Griffin, 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 31 SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT Marvin K. Gray, Charlotte I. Beverly Lake, Jr., Raleigh Samuel T. Currin, Raleigh EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh John R. Friday, Lincolnton D. Marsh McLelland, Graham Edward K. Washington, High Point L. Bradford Tillery, Wilmington Thomas H. Lee, Durham The Conference of Superior Court Judges (Executive Committee as of June 30, 1989) Robert D. Lewis, Asheville, President J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City, President-Elect Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone, Vice-President E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville, Secretary-Treasurer James M. Long, Pilot Mountain, Immediate Past-President Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg, Ex Officio Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown, and Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro, Additional Executive Committee Members Judge Robert D. Lewis 32 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The Superior Courts North Carolina's superior courts are the general jurisdiction trial courts for the state. In 1988-89, there were 74 "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 are 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 $10,000, and it has jurisdiction over appeals from administra-tive 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 Admin-istrator of Savings and Loans, the Governor's Waste Manage-ment Board, and the Utilities Commission. Appeals from these agencies 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 comprise two or more counties; and the more populous counties are divided among a "set of districts," composed of two or more districts created for purposes of election of superior court judges. Each district has at least one resident superior court judge who has certain administrative responsibilities for his or her home district, such as providing for civil case calendaring procedures. (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, holding court for at least six months in each, then moving 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 (a week each) of superior court are held annually in each of the 100 counties. The vast majority of counties have more than the constitutional minimum of two weeks of superior court annually. Many larger counties have superior court sessions about every week in the year. Expenditures A total of $16,928,560 was expended on the operations of the superior courts during the 1988-89 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. The 1988-89 expendi-ture for the superior courts amounted to 9.6% of the total General Fund expenditures for the operations of the entire Judicial Department during the 1988-89 fiscal year. Caseload Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 1 18,188 cases were filed in the superior courts during 1988-89, an increase of 12,484 cases ( 1 1 .8%) from the total of 105,704 cases that were filed in 1987-88. There were increases in filings in all case categories: civil cases, felony cases, and misdemeanor cases. Superior court case dispositions increased from 100,808 in 1987-88 to 111,278 in 1988-89. Dispositions in all case categories increased. More detailed information on the flow of cases through the superior courts is included in Part IV of this Report. 33 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* (As of June 30, 1989) 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, Bethel 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 6 Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck Robert E. Williford, Lewiston 7 George Britt, Tarboro Allen W. Harrell, Wilson Quentin T. Sumner, Rocky Mount Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson 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 David Q. LaBarre, Durham Richard Chaney, Durham William Y. Manson, Durham Carolyn D. Johnson, Durham Kenneth C. Titus, Durham 15A W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham Spencer B. Ennis, Burlington James K. Washburn, Burlington 15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill Lowry M. Betts, Pittsboro Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill 16A Warren L. Pate, Raeford 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, Reidsville Robert R. Blackwell, Reidsville Philip W. Allen, Yanceyville 17B Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy Clarence W. Carter, King 18 J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro Sherry F. Alloway, Greensboro Robert E. Bencini, Jr., 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 Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury Robert M. Davis, Salisbury Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis •The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 34 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* (As of June 30, 1989) District 19B William M. Neely, Asheboro Richard M. Toomes, Asheboro Vance B. Long, Asheboro 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, Valdese Jonathan L. Jones, Valdese Timothy S. Kincaid, Newton Nancy L. Einstein, Lenoir District 26 James E. Lanning, Charlotte Marilyn R. Bissell, Charlotte L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte Richard A. Elkins, Charlotte H. Brent McKnight, Charlotte Resa L. Harris, Charlotte Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte William G. Jones, Charlotte H. William Constangy, Jr., Charlotte William H. Scarborough, Charlotte Richard D. Boner, Charlotte 27A Larry B. Langson, Gastonia Daniel J. Walton, Gastonia Harley B. Gaston, Jr., Belmont Timothy L. Patti, Gastonia Catherine C. Stevens, Gastonia 27B George W. Hamrick, Shelby James T. Bowen, III, Lincolnton J. Keaton Fonvielle, Shelby 28 Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden Gary S. Cash, Fletcher Robert L. Harrell, Asheville Peter L. Roda, Asheville 29 Loto J. Greenlee, 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. 35 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES The Association of District Court Judges (Officers as of June 30, 1989) Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury, President Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston, Vice President Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory, Secretary-Treasurer E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy Charles P. Ginn, Boone Additional Executive Committee Members Judge Frank M. Montgomery 36 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 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 162 district court judges serving in 35 district court districts during 1988-89. These judges are elected to four-year terms by the voters of their respective districts. A total of 644 magistrate positions were authorized as of June 30, 1989. Of this number, about 70 positions were specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominations submitted by the clerk of superior court of their county, and they are supervised by the chief district court judge of their district. Jurisdiction The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtually all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary commitments and recom-mitments to mental hospitals, and domestic relations cases. Effective September 1, 1986, the General Assembly decrimi-nalized many minor traffic offenses. Such offenses, previously charged as misdemeanors, are now "infractions," defined as non-criminal violations of law not punishable by imprison-ment. The district court division has original jurisdiction for all infraction cases. The district courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the superior courts in general civil cases, but the district courts are the proper courts for the trial of civil cases where the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less. Upon the plaintiffs request, a civil case in which the amount in controversy is $1,500 or less, may be designated a "small claims" case and assigned by the chief district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magistrates are empowered to try worthless check criminal cases as directed by the chief district court judge when the value of the check does not exceed $1,000. In addition, they may accept written appearances, waivers of trial, and pleas of guilty in such worthless check cases when the amount of the check is $1,000 or less, the offender has made restitution, and the offender has fewer than four previous worthless check convictions. Magistrates may accept waivers of appearance and pleas of guilty 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 Judges. Magistrates also conduct initial hearings to fix conditions of release for arrested defendants, and they are empowered to issue arrest and search warrants. Administration A chief district court judge is appointed for each district court district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from among the elected judges in the respective districts. Subject to the Chief Justice's general supervision, each chief judge exercises administrative supervision and authority over the operation of the district courts and magistrates in the district. Each chiefjudge is responsible for scheduling sessions of district court and assigning judges; supervising the calendaring of noncriminal cases; assigning matters to magistrates; making arrangements for court reporting and jury trials in civil cases; and supervising the discharge of clerical functions in the district courts. The chief district court judges meet in conference at least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual conference adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses and fines for their violation for use by magistrates and clerks of court in accepting defendants' waivers of appearance and guilty pleas. Expenditures Total expenditures for the operation of the district courts in 1 988-89 amounted to $32, 1 7 1 ,668. This is an increase of 7.5% over 1987-88 expenditures of $29,939,853. Included in this total are the personnel costs of court reporters and secretaries as well as the personnel costs of the 162 district court judges and 644 magistrates. The 1988-89 total is 18.2% of the General Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial Department, about the same percentage share of total Judicial Department expenditures for the district courts in the 1987-88 fiscal year. Caseload During 1988-89 the statewide total number of district court filings (civil and criminal) increased by 199,296 cases (9.9%) over the total number reported for 1987-88. Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital commitment hearings, a total of 2,203,743 cases were filed in 1988-89. Much of this increase is attributable to increases in criminal motor vehicle and infraction filings. Considering criminal motor vehicle and infraction cases together there was an increase of 1 1 7,58 1 cases (11.4%) above the number of such cases filed in 1987-88. Filings of criminal non-motor vehicle cases increased by 42, 1 80 (8.2%), and filings of civil magistrate cases increased by 30,693 (11.1%) above the number of cases filed in these categories in 1987-88. 37 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The District Courts The Conference of Chief District Court Judges (Officers as of June 30, 1989) Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury, President Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids, Secretary-Treasurer Judge Frank M. Montgomery 38 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 DISTRICT ATTORNEYS (As of June 30, 1989) 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 6 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 12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 13 MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Bolivia 14 RONALD L. STEPHENS, Durham 15A STEVE A. BALOG, Graham 1 5B CARL R. FOX, Chapel Hill 16A JEAN E. POWELL, Raeford Prosecutorial District 16B JOHN R. TOWNSEND, Lumberton 17A THURMAN B. HAMPTON, Wentworth 17B HAROLD D. BOWMAN, Dobson 1 8 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 39 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The District Attorneys The Conference of District Attorneys (Executive Committee as of June 30, 1989) Ronald L. Stephens, President H. P. Williams, Jr., President-Elect W. David McFadyen, Jr., Vice President Michael F. Easley Thomas D. Haigwood Calvin B. Hamrick Horace M. Kimel C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., The District Attorneys Association (Officers as of June 30, 1989) Ronald L. Stephens, Durham, President H. P. Williams, Jr., Elizabeth City, President-Elect W. David McFadyen, Jr., New Bern, Vice President Gail Weiss, Durham, Secretary- Treasurer District Attorney Ronald L. Stephens 40 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The District Attorneys The State is divided into 36 prosecutorial districts which, with one exception, correspond to the 35 district court districts. The counties in District Court District 3 make up two separate prosecutorial districts, Prosecutorial Districts 3A and 3B. Prosecutorial District 3A consists of Pitt County, and Prosecu-torial District 3B is comprised of Craven, Carteret, and Pamlico (G.S. 7A-60). A district attorney is elected by the voters in each of the 36 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 prosecutorial 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, 1989, a total of 23 1 assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 36 prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District 26 (Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff (19 assistants) and the district attorney of five districts (15A, 15B, 17B, 23, and 24) had the smallest staff (three assistants). Each district attorney is authorized to employ an admini-strative assistant to aid in preparing cases for trial and to expedite the criminal court docket. The district attorney in 1 8 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 $20,452,61 1 was expended in 1988-89 for the 36 offices of district attorney. In addition, a total of $102,550 was expended for the District Attorney's Conference and its staff. 1988-1989 Caseload A total of 100,587 criminal cases were filed in the superior courts during 1988-89, consisting of 62,752 felony cases and 37,835 misdemeanor cases; all but 4,658 of the misdemeanors were appeals from the district courts. The total number of criminal filings in the superior courts in 1987-88 was 88,948. The increase of 11,639 cases in 1988-89 represents a 13.1% increase over the 1987-88 total. A total of 94,625 criminal cases were disposed of in the superior courts during 1988-89. There were 58,453 felony dispositions, and 36,172 misdemeanor dispositions. In 1988- 89, total criminal case dispositions increased by 9,502 cases (11.2%) over the 85,123 cases disposed of in 1987-88. The median ages of criminal cases at disposition in the superior courts during 1988-89 were 85 days for felony cases and 72 days for misdemeanors. In 1987-88, the median age of felony cases at disposition was 86 days, and the median age at disposition for misdemeanor cases was 70 days. The number of criminal cases disposed of by jury trial in the superior courts decreased from 3,111 in 1987-88 to 2,830 in 1988-89, a decrease of 9.0%. As in past years, the proportion of total criminal cases disposed by jury was small, 3.7% in 1987- 88 compared to 3.0% in 1988-89. However, the relatively small number of cases disposed by jury requires a great proportion of the superior court time and resources devoted to handling the criminal caseload. In contrast, in 1988-89 a majority (51,349 or 54.3%) of criminal case dispositions in superior courts were processed on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a trial. This percentage represents a slight increase from the proportion of guilty plea dispositions reported for 1987-88 (53.6%). "Dismissal by district attorney" accounted for a significant percentage of all criminal case dispositions during 1988-89, a total of 26,109 cases, or 27.6% of all dispositions. 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 criminal cases disposed of in the superior courts was 5,962 cases less than the total number of cases filed in 1988-89. Consequently, the number of criminal cases pending in superior court increased from 30,315 at the beginning of the fiscal year, to a total pending at year's end of 36,277, an increase of 19.7%. The median age of pending felony cases in the superior courts increased from 79 days on June 30, 1988, to 91 days on June 30, 1989. The median age of pending misdemeanors remained about the same, 78 days on June 30, 1988, compared to 79 days on June 30, 1989. In the district courts, a total of 1,702,723 criminal cases and infractions were filed during 1988-89. This total consisted of 467,644 criminal motor vehicle cases, 678,189 infraction cases, and 556,890 criminal non-motor vehicle cases. A comparison of total filings in 1988-89 with total filings in 1987-88 (1,542,962) reveals an increase in district court criminal and infraction filings of 159,761 cases, or 10.4%. Filings of non-motor vehicle cases rose by 42, 1 80 cases (8.2%), from 5 1 4,7 1 cases in 1987-88 to 556,890 cases in 1988-89. Filings of motor vehicle plus infraction cases increased by 117,581 cases (11.4%), from 1,028,252 in 1987-88 to 1,145,833 in 1988-89. Total dispositions of motor vehicle and infraction cases in the district courts amounted to 1 , 1 1 2, 1 20 cases during 1 988-89 (447,517 motor vehicle dispositions and 664,603 infraction dispositions). As in prior years, a substantial portion of such cases are disposed by waiver of appearance and entry of pleas of guilty (or "responsibility" in infraction cases) before a clerk or magistrate. During 1988-89, 544,036 (48.9%) of motor vehicle and infraction cases were disposed by waiver. This substantial number of cases did not, of course, require action by the district attorneys' offices and should not be regarded as 41 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 having been a part of the district attorneys' caseload. The remaining 568.084 infraction and motor vehicle cases (224,966 infraction and 343.1 18 motor vehicle cases) were disposed by means other than waiver. This balance was 80.696 cases (or 16.6%) more than the 487.388 non-waiver motor vehicle and infraction dispositions in 1987-88. With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case disposi-tions, a total of 535.502 such cases were disposed of in district courts in 1988-89. 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 196.979 cases, or 36.8% of the dispositions were by guilty pleas. An additional 146,559 cases, or 27.4% of the total were disposed of by prosecutor dismissal. The remaining cases were disposed of by waiver (10.4%), trial (7.5%), as a felony probable cause matter (9.6%), or by other means (8.4%). During 1988-89, the median age at disposition of non-motor vehicle criminal cases was 30 days, the same as the median age at disposition for these cases in 1987-88. During 1988-89, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle cases in the district courts exceeded dispositions by 2 1 ,388 cases. The number of non-motor vehicle criminal cases pending at year's end was 1 1 5,865, compared with a total of 94,477 that were pending at the beginning of the year, an increase of 21,388 (22.6%) in the number of pending cases. The median age for pending non-motor vehicle cases was 58 days on June 30, 1989, compared to 57 days on June 30, 1988. Additional information on the criminal caseloads in superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this Report. 42 CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT (As of June 30, 1989) 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 Dorothy Pate 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 O. 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 Nora H. Hargrove Iredell Angelia T. Roberts Yadkin Harold J. Long Jackson Frank Watson, Jr. Yancey F. Warren Hughes 43 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The Clerks of Superior Court Association of Clerks of Superior Court (Officers as of June 30, 1989) James L. Carr, Durham County President Ray Elingburg, Buncombe County First Vice President Judy Arledge, Polk County Second Vice President C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr., Scotland County Secretary Georgia L. Brown, Harnett County Treasurer James L. Carr 44 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 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 administrative 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 proceedings" as adoptions, condemnations of private property under the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings to establish boundaries, fore-closures, and certain proceedings to administer the estates of minors and incompetent adults. The right of appeal from the clerks' judgments in such cases lies to the superior court. The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and other process necessary to execute the judgments entered in the superior and district courts of the county. For certain offenses, the clerk is authorized to accept defendants' waivers of appearance and pleas of guilty or admissions of responsibility and to impose fines in accordance with a schedule established 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 Administrative Office of the Courts. In most counties, the clerk continues to perform certain functions related to preparation of civil case calendars, and in many counties, the clerk's staff assists the district attorney in preparing criminal case calendars as well. Policy and oversight responsibility for civil case calendaring is vested in the State's senior resident superior court judges and chief district court judges. However, day-to-day civil calendar preparation is the clerk's responsibility in all districts except those served by trial court administrators. Expenditures A total of $55,873,693 was expended in 1988-89 for the operation of the 100 clerk of superior court offices. In addition to the salaries and other expenses of the clerks and their staffs, this total includes expenditures for jurors' fees, and witness expenses. Total expenditures for clerk's offices in 1988-89 amounted to 3 1 .6% of the General Fund expenditures for the operations of the entire Judicial Department. 1988-89 Caseload During 1988-89, estate case filings totalled 46,992, which represents a 4.4% increase over the 45,013 cases filed in 1987- 88. Estate case dispositions totalled 44,609 cases in 1 988-89, or 3.1% more than the previous year's total of 43,288. A total of 46,405 special proceedings was filed before the 100 clerks of superior courts in 1988-89. This is an increase of 4,524 cases (10.8%) from the 41,881 filings in the previous fiscal year. Special proceedings dispositions totalled 41,203 cases, or 8.6% more than the previous year's total of 37,95 1 . 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 1988-89 year was 1 18,188 and the total number of district court filings, not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital commitment hearings, was 2,203,743. More detailed information on the estates and special proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this Report. 45 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 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 delinquent or undisciplined behavior by children, to determine whether petitions should be filed. During the 1988-89 year a total of 30.985 complaints were brought to the attention of intake counselors. Of this number, 21,650 (70%) were approved for filing, and 9,335 (30%) were not approved for filing. Probation and aftercare refer to supervision of children in their own communities. Probation is authorized by judicial order. Aftercare service is provided for juveniles after their release from a training school. (Protective supervision is also a form of court-ordered supervision within the community; this service is combined with probation and aftercare.) In 1 988-89 a total of 1 5,739 juveniles were supervised in the probation and aftercare program. Expenditures The Juvenile Services Division is State-funded. The expen-ditures for fiscal year 1988-89 totalled $12,070,842. This was an increase of 6.5% over the 1987-88 expenditures. The 1988- 89 expenditures amounted to 6.8% of all General Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial Depart-ment, 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 Admini-strator's general supervision, each chief court counselor exercises administrative supervision over the operation of the court counseling services in the respective districts. Juvenile Services Division Staff (As of June 30, 1989) 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 46 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Juvenile Services Division (As of June 30, 1989) District Court District Chief Court Counselors District Court District Chief Court Counselors 1 Donald Alexander 2 Joseph A. Paul 3 Eve C. Rogers 4 Ida Ray Miles 5 Phyllis Roebuck 6 John R. Brady 7 Pam Honeycutt 8 Lynn C. Sasser 9 Sherman Wilson 10 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 16B Robert H. Hughes 17Aand 17B Martha M. Lauten 18 J. Manley Dodson 19A and 19B 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 1988-89) Executive Committee Members Carl Duncan, President Shirley Hudler, President-Elect Gina Crawford, Secretary Dennis Cotten, Treasurer Amie Haith, Parliamentarian 1986-89 Richard Alligood Marion Brewer Anne Loy Board Members 1987-90 1988-91 Gloria Newman Blake Belcher Charles Reeves Kathy Dudley Martha Lauten Wayne Arnold Carl Duncan 47 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 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 appro-priate 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 1988-89. a total of 1,252 volunteers were active in the North Carolina program and represented a total of 6,519 abused and neglected children. These volunteers participated in 7.212 court hearings and gave approximately 1 25,000 volunteer hours to casework and training in the State's guardian ad litem program. Expenditures During 1 988-89, total expenditures for the guardian ad litem program amounted to $1,688,951. Of this amount, $576,718 was for program attorney fees and $1,11 2,233 was for program administration. The total included reimbursement of volunteers' expense of $74,001 (covering 107,512 casework hours for 6.519 abused and neglected children). This compares with 1987-88 total expenditures of $1,332,851, with 989 volunteers representing 5,011 children and providing 64,752 casework hours with reimbursement expenses of $41,158. Administration The Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services, established by the General Assembly in 1983, is a division of the Administra-tive Office of the Courts. The Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts appoints the Administrator 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 two regional managers, 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 operational problems in the districts. A coordinator is employed for 30 of the State's 35 district court districts to recruit, screen, train and supervise volunteers. Program coordinators 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 coordinators plan an initial sixteen-hour training course for new volunteers, match children (who are before the courts) with volunteers, implement continued training for experienced guardians, and provide supervision of, and consul-tation and support to, volunteers. Other coordinator respon-sibilities 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. (Coordinators were not employed during 1988- 89 for districts in which the caseload was too small to justify a coordinator position. In those districts, a contract attorney served as the volunteer coordinator.) Guardian Ad Litem Staff (As of June 30, 1989) Virginia C. Weisz, Administrator Cindy Mays, Regional Manager Marilyn Stevens, Regional Manager 4X ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Guardian ad Litem Divison (As of June 30, 1989) istrict Court District Coordinator 1 Veola Spivey 2 Jennifer Leggett 3 Carol Mattocks 4 Jean Hawley 5 Jane Brister 6 Patsey Moseley-Moss 7 Sandra Pittman 8 Claudia Kadis 9 Sarah Sponenberg 10 Lloyd Inman 12 Brownie Smathers 13 Michele Rohde and Betty Buck 14 Cy Gurney District Court District Coordinator 15A Eleanor Ketcham 15B&19B Floyd Wicker 16A & 16B Gladys Pierce 18 Sam Parrish 19A Amy Collins 20 Martha Sue Hall 21 Linda Garrou 22 Pam Ashmore 25 Anglea Phillips 26 Judi Strause 27A & 27B Sindy Waggoner 28 Jean Moore 29 Barbara King 30 Celia Larson 49 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Public Defenders During 1988-89. there were ten public defender offices in North Carolina, serving Defender Districts 3 A, 3B, 12, 15B, 1 6A. 1 6B. 1 8. 26. 27A. 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 defenders are entitled by statute to the numbers of full or part-time assistants and investigators as may be authorized by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Entitlement of Indigents to Counsel A person is "indigent" if "financially unable to secure legal representation." An indigent person is entitled to State-paid legal representation in the proceedings listed in G.S. 7A-451, including any case in which imprisonment or a fine of $500 or more is likely to be adjudged; juvenile proceedings which may result in confinement, transfer to superior court for trial on a felony charge, or termination of parental rights; proceedings alleging mental illness or incapacity which may result in hospitalization or sterilization; extradition proceedings; certain probation or parole revocation hearings; and certain requests for post-conviction relief from a criminal judgment. In defender districts, most representation of indigents is handled by the public defender's office. However, in certain circumstances, such as a potential conflict of interest, the court or the public defender may assign private counsel to represent an indigent. In areas of the state that are not served by a public defender office, indigents are represented by private counsel assigned by the court. Expenditures A total of $4,71 7,45 1 was expended for operation of the ten public defender offices during 1988-89. This was an increase of $630,199 (15.4%) over 1987-88 expenditures of $4,087,252. 1988-89 Caseload The ten public defender offices disposed of cases involving a total of 28,363 defendants during 1988-89. This was an increase of 3,407 defendants, or 13.7%, over the 24,956 defendants represented to disposition during 1987-88. Additional information concerning the operation of these offices is found in Part III of this Annual Report. PUBLIC DEFENDERS (As of June 30, 1989) District 3A (Pitt County) Robert L. Shoffner, Greenville District 3B (Carteret County) Henry C. Boshamer, Beaufort District 12 (Cumberland County) Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville District 15B (Orange and Chatham Counties) John Kirk Osborn, Chapel Hill District 16A (Scotland and Hoke Counties) J. Graham King, Laurinburg District 16B (Robeson County) Angus B. Thompson, II, Lumberton District 18 (Guilford County) Wallace C. Harrelson, Greensboro District 26 (Mecklenburg County) Isabel S. Day, Charlotte District 27A (Gaston County) Rowell C. Cloninger, Jr., Gastonia District 28 (Buncombe County) J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville •Through December 31, 1988, Pitt and Carteret Counties were served by a single public defender office, within judicial district 3. Effective January 1, 1989, the General Assembly established Defender Districts3A (Pitt) and 3B (Carteret). Defender Districts 16Aand 16B were established effective January 1, 1989. Prior to January 1, 1989. Hoke County was served by the public defender office in district 12. "The public defender in District 16B is appointed from a list of not less than three names submitted by written ballot of the licensed attorneys who reside in the district, by the resident superior court judge of Superior Court District 16B other than the senior resident superior court judge. 50 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 Public Defenders The Association of Public Defenders (Officers as of June 30, 1989) Wallace C. Harrelson, President Kellum Morris, Vice President Elloise McCain Hassell, Secretary-Treasurer Wallace C. Harrelson 51 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The Office of the Appellate Defender (Staff as of June 30, 1989) Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender Assistant Appellate Defenders M. Patricia DeVine David W. Dorey Staples S. Hughes Teresa McHugh Mark D. Montgomery Daniel R. Pollitt M. Gordon Widenhouse Constance H. Everhart The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a State-funded program on October 1, 1981. (Prior to that date, appellate defender services were funded by a one-year federal grant.) The 1985 General Assembly made permanent the Appellate Defender Office by repealing its expiration provision. In accord with the assignments made by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the Appellate Defender and staff to provide criminal defense appellate services to indigent persons who are appealing their convictions to the N.C. Supreme Court, the N.C. Court of Appeals, or to Federal courts. The Office of the Appellate Defender, through a combination of state and federal funding, also provides assistance to attorneys representing defendants in capital cases, and acts as counsel for defendants in other capital trials and post-conviction proceedings. The Appellate Defender is appointed by and carries out the duties of the Office under the general supervision of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may, consistent with the resources available to the Appellate Defender and to insure quality criminal defense services, authorize certain appeals to be assigned to a local public defender office or to private assigned counsel instead of to the Appellate Defender. 1988-89 Caseload The Office of the Appellate Defender accepted appointment in a total of 139 appeals or petitions for writ of certiorari during the 1988-89 year. The Appellate Defender Office filed a total of 1 15 briefs in the North Carolina Court of Appeals and 41 briefs in the Supreme Court of North Carolina during the 1988-89 year. Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr. 52 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1988-89 The North Carolina Courts Commission (Members as of June 30, 1989) Appointed by the Governor Johnathan L. Rhyne, Jr., Lincolnton, Chairman Member, N.C. House of Representatives Clyde M. Roberts, Marshall Garland N. Yates, Asheboro District Attorney Harold J. Long, Yadkinville Clerk of Court Dan R. Simpson, Morganton Member, N.C. State Senate Appointed by President of the Senate (Lieutenant Governor) Anthony E. Rand, Fayetteville Member, N.C. Senate Russell J. Hollers, Troy Henson P. Barnes, Goldsboro Member, N.C. Senate Alfred M. Goodwin, Louisburg |
OCLC Number-Original | 3905223 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
A |
|
B |
|
C |
|
D |
|
F |
|
G |
|
L |
|
M |
|
N |
|
O |
|
R |
|
S |
|
T |
|
V |
|
W |
|
|
|