.
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