State Libra X l"3 /
I or- 3 82/6*
c ^ ^fartfy (ttarnlma Courts
N. Ca
1982- 83 ^A' /
- /' lo
JVratual Report
of tlje
JVbtntntstrattlie (§fftcc of i\\t (Eourts
The Cover: The Nash County Courthouse, in Nashville, North Carolina, an important
and rare example of Colonial Revival public architecture in the State, was completed
in 1921. It is constructed of brick and distinguished by fine ornamentation. The
temple-form main block is flanked by small brick wings.
NORTH CAROLINA COURTS
1982-83
ANNUAL REPORT
of the
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
JUSTICE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
The Honorable Joseph Branch, 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
Seventeenth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1,
1982 — June 30, 1983.
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 Divi-sion.
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 E. Freeman, Jr.
Director
February, 1984
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1983nort
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part I
The 1982-83 Judicial Year in Review
The 1982-83 Judicial Year in Review 1
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations
Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 5
The Present Court System 8
Organization and Operations in 1982-83
The Supreme Court 12
The Court of Appeals . 22
The Superior Courts 30
The District Courts 33
District Attorneys . 36
Clerks of Superior Court 39
Juvenile Services Division 41
Public Defenders 43
The N.C. Courts Commission 45
The Judicial Standards Commission 47
Part III
Court Resources
Judicial Department Finances
Appropriations 51
Expenditures 54
Receipts 56
Distribution of Receipts 57
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 60
Judicial Department Personnel 67
Part IV
Trial Courts Caseflow Data
Trial Courts Case Data 71
Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 75
District Court Division Caseflow Data 119
Tables, Charts and Graphs
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations
Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the
Present Court System 8
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina
Trial Courts 11
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 12
Supreme Court. Caseload Inventory 14
Supreme Court. Submission of Cases to Decision Stage 15
Supreme Court. Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 15
Supreme Court. Disposition of Appeals 16
Supreme Court. Manner of Disposition of Appeals 17
Supreme Court. Type of Disposition of Petitions ..., 17
Supreme Court. Pending Cases 18
Supreme Court. Appeals Docketed and Disposed of,
1 978-79— 1981-82 19
Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed,
1 978-79— 1981-82 20
Supreme Court. Processing Time for Disposed Cases „ 21
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 22
Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 24
Court of Appeals, Inventory of Cases Appealed 25
Court of Appeals, Manner of Disposition of Cases 26
Court of Appeals, Inventory of Motions and Petitions 27
Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1977— 1981-82 28
Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 29
Judges of Superior Court 30
District Court Judges 33
District Attorneys 36
Clerks of Superior Court 39
Chief Court Counselors 41
Public Defenders 43
The N.C. Courts Commission 45
The Judicial Standards Commission 47
Part III
Court Resources
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department 51
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department 52
General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of All
State Agencies and Judicial Department 53
General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations 54
Judicial Department Receipts 56
Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 57
Tables, Charts and Graphs
Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the
Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 58
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 61
Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 62
Assigned Counsel, Cases and Expenditures 63
Judicial Department Personnel 67
Part IV
Trial Courts Caseflow Data
Superior Courts, Caseload 76
Superior Courts, Caseload Trends 77
Superior Courts, Civil Cases Trends 78
Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 79
Superior Courts, Civil Cases Inventory 80
Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Methods of Disposition 84
Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition 85
Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases 89
Superior Courts, Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 94
Superior Courts, Inventory of Estates and Special Proceedings 95
Superior Courts, Trends in Criminal Cases 99
Superior Courts, Inventory of Criminal Cases 1 00
Superior Courts, Methods of Disposition of Criminal Cases 104
Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Criminal Cases 105
Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases . . 1 09
District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 1 20
District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of All Cases 121
District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases .122
District Courts, General Civil and Domestic Relations Cases 123
District Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory 1 24
District Courts, Methods of Disposition of Civil Cases 1 28
District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases ..... 1 29
District Courts, Ages of Civil Cases 133
District Courts, Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions .138
District Courts, Offenses and Conditions in Juvenile Petitions 1 40
District Courts, Adjudicatory Hearings, Juvenile Petitions 144
District Courts, Trends of Criminal Cases 1 49
District Courts, Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions 150
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory 154
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Methods of Disposition 158
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 1 59
District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases 163
Rankings of Judicial Districts In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of,
Superior Court and District Court Cases 1 68
Rankings of Counties In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of,
Superior and District Court Cases ....169
in
PARTI
THE 1982-1983 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
THE 1982-83 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, 1982 and ended June 30, 1983.
The Workload of the Courts
As set out in more detail in Part II of this Report, case
filings in the Supreme Court totalled 209 compared with
241 filed during 1981-82. A total of 538 petitions were
filed in the Supreme Court, compared with 68 1 in 198 1-
82; and 74 petitions were allowed compared with 75 in
1981-82.
For the Court of Appeals for 1982-83, case filings were
1,398 compared with l,413forthe 1981-82year. Petitions
in 1982-83 totalled 483, compared with 581 during the
1981-82 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%, to a total of 85,488 in 1982-83, com-pared
with 84,571 cases in 1981-82. Superior court case
dispositions also increased, to a total of 84,797, com-pared
with 82,165 in 1981-82. As case filings during the
year exceeded case dispositions, the total number of cases
pending at the end of the year increased by 69 1 , or 0.8%.
Operations of the superior courts are summarized in Part
II of this Report, and detailed information on the case-loads
in the 100 counties and 34 judicial districts is pre-sented
in Part IV.
Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospi-tal
commitment hearings, the statewide total of district
court filings (civil and criminal) during 1982-83 was
1,445,571, an increase of 24,262 cases (1.7%) from 1981-
82 filings of 1 ,421 ,307 cases. The only area of the district
court caseload to register an increase in 1982-83 over the
previous fiscal year was the motor vehicle criminal case
category, which had total filings of 728,5 17 cases in 1982-
83, an increase of 7.5% over the 677,247 cases filed in
198 1 -82. There was a 2.9% drop in civil case filings from a
total of 325,886 in 1981-82 to 316,539 in 1982-83. Most of
this decrease was in civil magistrate filings, from 2 1 5,625
cases in 1981-82 to 206,163 cases in 1982-83. There was a
small increase of 248 cases in the domestic relations
category.
1983 Legislative Highlights
Constitutional Amendment
The General Assembly approved a proposed constitu-tional
amendment to provide that district attorneys and
the Attorney General must be authorized to practice law
in North Carolina. This proposed amendment will be on
the ballot for voter approval at the November, 1984
general election (Chapter 298, 1983 Session Laws).
Service As Emergency Judge
The number of years of service a retired judge or justice
must have to be eligible to serve as an emergency judge or
justice was reduced from 15 to 12 (Chapter 784, 1983
Session Laws).
Pay Increases
Funds were appropriated for a five percent pay
increase for officials and employees of the Judicial
Department, as was provided for State employees gener-ally.
The freeze on merit increases was continued. Lon-gevity
pay for elected officials in the Judicial Department
was provided for the first time, with justices and judges to
receive 4.8% if they have at least five years' service as a
justice or judge and 9.6% if they have at least ten years'
service. For the 83-84 fiscal year, clerks of court and
district attorneys will receive a 4.8% longevity payment if
they have at least five years of service in that elected
office. Effective July 1, 1984, they will receive 9.6%) lon-gevity
payment if they have at least ten years' service in
office.
Increase In Court Costs
As recommended by the North Carolina Courts Com-mission,
there was a general revision of the court fees; the
first since 1965. The estimated increase in annual total
revenue from court fees is about $10 million (Chapter
713, 1983 Session Laws).
Increase In Pay for Juror Service
The pay for jury service was increased from $8 to $ 1 2 a
day, for petit jury service; and from $2 to $6 a day for
special proceedings (S 10 per day if the special proceeding
lasts more than half a day).
Appeal of Rate Cases
Legislation was enacted to implement an amendment
to the State Constitution which was approved by the
voters in 1982. This change allows direct appeal of gen-eral
rate decisions from the Utilities Commission to the
N.C. Supreme Court (by-passing the Court of Appeals)
(Chapter 526, 1983 Session Laws).
Conference of District Attorneys
A Conference of District Attorneys was established, to
consist of all elected district attorneys. The Conference is
authorized to employ an executive secretary, and has an
appropriation of about $90,000 for the 1983-84 year.
Indigent Defense
As recommended by the Courts Commission, a separ-ate
line item is contained in the 1 983-84 appropriation act
for indigent defense costs, instead of this beingan item in
the Judicial Department budget.
There was an enactment to require the court to order
parents to pay for a minor's legal services where the
parents are financially able to do so (Chapter 726, 1983
THE 1982-83 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
Session Laws). The Administrative Office of the Courts
was directed to implement statewide a guardian ad litem
program for juveniles (Chapter 761, 1983 Session Laws).
N. C. Courts Commission
The Courts Commission was restructured, to have 24
voting members, with six members each appointed by the
Speaker, the President of the Senate, the Governor, and
the Chief Justice. The Governorcontinues to appoint the
chairman. (Chapter 774. 1983 Session Laws).
Revision of Evidence Law
A comprehensive revision of the evidence statutes was
enacted by the 1983 General Assembly (Chapter 701,
1983 Session Laws). These changes were recommended
by the Legislative Research Commission, which had been
authorized to undertake a study of evidence laws by prior
resolutions of the General Assembly.
Administration of Estates by Affidavit
The size of small estates that may be administered by
affidavit to the clerk of superior court was increased from
S5.000 to S10.000 (Chapter 65, 1983 Session Laws). The
amount of indebtedness owed a decedent that can be paid
to the clerk for administration was increased from $2,000
to S5.000 (Chapter 65, 1983 Session Laws).
Waiver of Trial for Minor Boating,
Hunting and Fishing Violations
Effective January 1, 1984, minor boating, hunting and
fishing citations hay be handled as are minor traffic viola-tions,
on written waiver of trial and entry of plea of guilty
in accord with a uniform schedule of fines adopted by the
Conference of Chief District Judges. (Chapter 586, 1983
Session Laws). This eliminates the necessity for such
persons to appear personally in court to enter pleas of
guilty.
Speedy Trial Laws
The 1 20-day speedy trial requirement was made perma-nent,
instead of a scheduled reduction to 90 days; and the
exclusion of district court cases from the speedy-trial law
was made permanent. Further, the 120-day requirement
does not apply in a county that has fewer than eight
regularly scheduled criminal or mixed weekly sessions of
superior court each year (Chapter 571, 1983 Session
Laws).
Appropriations for Judicial Department
At the regular 1983 Session, the General Assembly
approved the following appropriations directly to the
Judicial Department: $89,201,205 for the 1983-84 year
and $87,181,828 for the 1984-85 year, for operations of
the Judicial Department;and$14,106,078forthe 1983-84
year, and $12,931,431 for the 1984-85 year, for indigent
defense fees. A portion ($2,785,856) of the 83-84 amount
for indigent defense fees was for payment for services in
the latter part of the 1982-83 fiscal year.
PART II
COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION
AND OPERATIONS
• Historical Development of Court System
• Present Court System
• Organization and Operations in 1982-83
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
From its early colonial period North Carolina's judi-cial
system has been the focus of periodic attention and
adjustment. Through the years, there has been a repeated
sequence of critical examination, proposals for reform,
and finally the enactment of some reform measures.
Colonial Period
Around 1700 the royal governor established a General
(or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute devel-oped
over the appointment of associate justices. The
Assembly conceded to the King the right to name the
chief justice but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the
power to appoint the associate justices. Other controver-sies
developed concerning the creation and jurisdiction of
the courts and the tenure of judges. As for the latter, the
Assembly's position was that judge appointments should
be for good behavior as against the royal governor's
decision for life appointment. State historians have noted
that "the Assembly won its fight to establish courts and
the judicial structure in the province was grounded on
laws enacted by the legislature", which was more familiar
with local conditions and needs (Lefler and Newsome,
142). Nevertheless, North Carolina alternated between
periods under legislatively enacted reforms (like good
behavior tenure and the Court Bill of 1746, which con-tained
the seeds of the post-Revolutionary court system)
and periods of stalemate and anarchy after such enact-ment
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 Independ-ence
(Battle, 847).
At the lower court level during the colonial period,
judicial and county government administrative functions
were combined in the authority of the justices of the
peace, who were appointed by the royal governor.
After the Revolution
When North Carolina became a state in 1776, the
colonial structure of the court system was retained largely
intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the
county court which continued in use from about 1670 to
1868 — were still held by the assembled justices of the
peace in each county. The justices were appointed by the
governor on the recommendation of the General Assem-bly,
and they were paid out of fees charged litigants. On
the lowest level of the judicial system, magistrate courts
of limited jurisdiction were held by justices of the peace,
singly or in pairs, while the county court was out of term.
The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the General
Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of Law
and Equity. A court law enacted a year later authorized
three superior court judges and created judicial districts.
Sessions were supposed to be held in the court towns of
each district twice a year, under a system much like the
one that had expired in 1772. Just as there had been little
distinction in terminology between General Court and
Supreme Court prior to the Revolution, the terms
Supreme Court and Superior Court were also inter-changeable
during the period immediately following the
Revolution.
One of the most vexing governmental problems con-fronting
the new State of North Carolina was its judi-ciary.
"From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary
caused complaint and demands for reform. "(Lefler and
Newsome, 29 1 , 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflicting
judge opinions, and insufficient number of judges, and
lack of means for appeal were all cited as problems,
although the greatest weakness was considered to be the
lack of a real Supreme Court.
In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court
judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court of Confer-ence
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
independent three-judge Supreme Court was created for
review of cases decided at the Superior Court level.
Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in
each county were made mandatory in 1806, and the State
was divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the six
judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constituting a
quorum as before.
The County Court of justices of the peace continued
during this period as the lowest court and as the agency of
local government.
After the Civil War
Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it
more democratic were made in 1868. A primary holdover
from the English legal arrangement — the distinction
between law and equity proceedings — was abolished.
The County Court's control of local government was
abolished. Capital offenses were limited to murder,
arson, burglary and rape, and the Constitution stated
that the aim of punishment was "not only to satisfy
justice, but also to reform the offender, and thus prevent
crime". The membership of the Supreme Court was
raised to five, and the selection of the justices (including
the designation of the chief justice) and superior court
judges (raised in number to 12) was taken from the legis-lature
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 indi-
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
vidual justices of the peace, who were retained as separate
judicial officers with limited jurisdiction.
Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 Con-stitution
in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme Court
justices to three and the Superior Court judges to nine.
The General Assembly was given the power to appoint
justices of the peace, instead of the governor. Most of the
modernizing changes in the post-Civil War Constitution,
however, were left, and the judicial structure it had estab-lished
continued without systematic modification through
more than half of the 20th century. (A further constitu-tional
amendment approved by the voters in November,
! vvv
. returned the Supreme Court membership to five,
and the number of superior court judges to twelve.)
Before Reorganization
A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising
demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily
encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time sys-tematic
court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. This
accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the court
system was most evident at the lower, local court level,
where hundreds of courts specially created by statute
operated with widely dissimilar structure and jurisdiction.
By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent
major reforms was begun, the court system in North
Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme Court,
with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior court, with
general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statutory courts of
limited jurisdiction, and (d) justices of the peace and
mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction.
At the superior court level, the State had been divided
into 30 judicial districts and 21 solicitorial districts. The
38 superior court judges (who rotated among the coun-ties)
and the district solicitors were paid by the State. The
clerk of superior court, who was judge of probate and
often also a juvenile judge, was a county official. There
were specialized branches of superior court in some coun-ties
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 1 80 recorder-type
courts. Among these were the county recorder's courts,
municipal recorder's courts and township recorder's
courts: the general county courts, county criminal courts
and special county courts; the domestic relations courts
and the juvenile courts. Some of these had been estab-lished
individually by special legislative acts more than a
half-century earlier. Others had been created by general
lav. across the State since 1919. About half were county
courts and half were city or township courts. Jurisdiction
included misdemeanors (mostly traffic offenses), prelim-inary
hearings and sometimes civil matters. The judges,
who were usually part-time, were variously elected or
appointed locally.
At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and
some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had similar
criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties up
to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the peace
also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These court
officials were compensated by the fees they exacted, and
they provided their own facilities.
Court Reorganization
The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revision
of the court system received the attention and support of
Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who encouraged
the leadership of the North Carolina Bar Association to
pursue the matter. A Court Study Committee was estab-lished
as an agency of the North Carolina Bar Associa-tion,
and that Committee issued its report, calling for
reorganization, at theend of 1958. A legislative Constitu-tional
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 impor-tant
part of the proposal was the elimination of the local
satutory courts and their replacement by a single District
Court; the office of justice of the peace was to be abol-ished,
and the newly fashioned position of magistrate
would function within the District Court as a subordinate
judicial office.
Constitutional amendments were introduced in the
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were rein-troduced
and approved at the 1961 session. The Constitu-tional
amendments were approved by popular vote in
1 962, and three years later the General Assembly enacted
statutes to put the system into effect by stages. By the end
of 1970 all of the counties and their courts had been
incorporated into the new system, whose unitary nature
was symbolized by the name, General Court of Justice.
The designation of the entire 20th century judicial system
as a single, statewide "court," with components for vari-ous
types and levels of caseload, was adapted from North
Carolina's earlier General Court, whose full venue ex-tended
to all of the 17th century counties.
After Reorganization
Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has continued.
In 1965, the Constitution wasamended to provide forthe
creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It was
amended again in 1972 to allow for the Supreme Court to
censure or remove judges upon the recommendation of a
Judicial Standards Commission. As for the selection of
judges, persistent efforts have been 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 have received the backing of a
majority of the members of each house, but not the
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
three-fifths required to submit constitutional amend- significant issue will be before the General Assembly
ments to a vote of the people. It seems likely that this again for consideration.
Major Sources
Battle, Kemp P., An Address on the History of the Supreme Court (Delivered in 1888) I North Carolina Reports 835-876.
Hinsdale, C. E., County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition.
Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina: The History of a Southern State. 1963 Edition.
Sanders, John L., Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of Government
Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold, North Carolina Courts of Law and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular 1973.
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal
Recommendations
from Judicial I"
| standards Commission |
I 1
Original Jurisdit lion
All felons cases, civil
cases in excess ol SI 0.000**
I 1 Decisions of
I Mosl Administrative
Agencies
(
1
Final Order of
—J Utilities Commission in I
General Rate Case*
SUPERIOR
COURTS
68 Judges
Original Jurisdit turn
Probate and estates,
special proceedings
(condemnations, adoptions,
partitions, foreclosures.
criminal cases
(lor trial de novo)
Clerks of Superior
Court
(100)
ivil cases
DISTRICT
COURTS
142 Judges
Magistrates
(611)
s
®.
r Decisions of Industrial
Commission, State Barj
>J
Property Tax Commission,
j Commissioner of Insurance,
Bd. of State Contract Appeals
"1
L
Original Jurisdiction
Misdemeanor cases not assigned
to magistrates; probable cause
hearings; civil cases $10,000**
or less; juvenile proceedings;
domestic relations;
involuntary commitments
Original Jurisdiction
Accept certain misdemeanor
guilty pleas: worthless check
misdemeanors $500 or less;
small claims $1,000 or less*
i Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving comstitutional
questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may review Court of Appeals
decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance.
12) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals.
(3 j As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in criminal cases in which the defendent has been sentenced to death or life
imprisonment, and in civil cases involving the involuntary annexation of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or more population. In all other cases
appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the trial courts incases where delay
would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full.
ive lulj I. 1983. appeals in general rate cases go directly to Supreme Court instead of Court of Appeals.
'*
I he 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
i 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 estab-lishes
the General Court of Justice which "shall constitute
a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction,
operation, and administration, and shall consist of an
Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a
District Court Division."
The Appellate Division is comprised of the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals.
The Superior Court Division is comprised of the super-ior
courts which hold sessions in the county seats of the
100 counties of the State. The counties are grouped into
judicial districts (34 at the present time), and one or more
superior court judges are elected for each of the judicial
districts. A clerk of the superior court for each county is
elected by the voters of the county.
The District Court Division is comprised of the district
courts. The General Assembly is authorized to divide the
State into a convenient number of local court districts and
prescribe where the district courts shall sit, but district
court must sit in at least one place in each county. The
General Assembly has provided that districts for pur-poses
of the district court are co-terminous with superior
court judicial districts. The Constitution also provides for
one or more magistrates to be appointed in each county
"who shall be officers of the district court."
The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains
the term, "judicial department, "stating that "The General
Assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial
department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully
pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the govern-ment,
nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other
than as permitted by this Article." The terms, "General
Court of Justice"and "Judicial Department" are almost,
but not quite, synonymous. It may be said that the Judi-cial
Department encompasses all of the levels of court
designated as the General Court of Justice plus all admin-istrative
and ancillary services within the Judicial De-partment.
The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal between
the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of
courts are illustrated in the chart on the opposite page.
Criminal Cases
Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original juris-diction
of the district courts. Some misdemeanor offenses
are tried by magistrates, who are also empowered to
accept pleas of guilty to certain offenses and impose fines
in accordance with a schedule set by the Conference of
Chief District Court Judges. Most trials of misdemeanors
are by district court judges, who also hold preliminary,
"probable cause" hearings in felony cases. Trial of felony
cases is within the jurisdiction of the superior courts.
Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the district
court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by jury
available at the district court level; appeal from the dis-trict
courts'judgments in criminal cases is to the superior
courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in life-imprisonment
or death sentence cases (which are appealed
to the Supreme Court), appeal from the superior courts is
to the Court of Appeals.
Civil Cases
The 100 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges of
probate and have original jurisdiction in probate and
estates matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction over
such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, con-demnations
under the authority of eminent domain, and
foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the
superior court.
The district courts have original jurisdiction in juvenile
proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for invol-untary
commitment to a mental hospital, and are the
"proper" courts for general civil cases where the amount
in controversy is $10,000 or less. If the amount in con-troversy
is $1,000 or less and the plaintiff in the case so
requests, the chief district court judge may assign the case
for initial hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates' decisions
may be appealed to the district court. Trial by jury for
civil cases is available in the district courts; appeal from
the judgment of a district court in a civil case is to the
North Carolina Court of Appeals.
The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of
general civil cases where the amount in controversy is
more than $10,000. Appeals from decisions of most
administrative agencies is 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 supple-ment
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 responsi-ble
for scheduling the sessions of the Court of Appeals.
The chart on the following page illustrates specific
responsibilities for administration of the trial courts
vested in Judicial Department officials by statute. The
Chief Justice appoints the Director and an Assistant
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts; this
Assistant 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
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
each oi the State's 34 judicial districts from among the
elected district court judges of the respective districts.
These judges have responsibilities for the scheduling of
the district courts and magistrates' courts within their
respective districts, along with other administrative respon-sibilities.
The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible
for direction of non-judicial, administrative and business
affairs of the Judicial Department. Included among its
functions are fiscal management, personnel services,
information and statistical services, supervision of record
keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, liaison with the
legislative and executive departments of government,
court facility evaluation, purchase and contract, educa-tion
and training, coordination of the program for provi-sion
of legal counsel to indigent persons, juvenile proba-tion
and after-care, trial court administrator services,
planning, and general administrative services.
The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk
for both the superior and district courts. Until 1980, the
clerk also served as chairman of the county's calendar
committee, which set the civil case calendars. Effective
July 1, 1980, these committees were eliminated; day-to-day
calendaring of civil cases is now done by the clerk of
superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in some
districts, under the supervision of the senior resident
superior court judge and chief district court judge. The
criminal case calendars in both superior and district
courts are set by the district attorney of the respective
district.
10
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts
CHIEF JUSTICE
and
SUPREME COURT
(34) Senior Resident
Judges; (100) Clerks
of Superior Court
SUPERIOR
COURTS
i
Administrative
Office of
the Courts
i
(35) District
Attorneys
(34) Chief District
Court Judges
DISTRICT
COURTS
The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other trial
courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court judges, who
rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice.
2The Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the
pleasure of the Chief Justice.
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 34 judicial districts from thejudges elected in
the respective districts.
4The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the
Judicial Department.
5The district attorney sets the criminal-case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and
the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their respective
courts.
6 ln addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping
functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the supervision of the
chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees submitted by the clerk
of superior court.
11
THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA*
Chief Justice
JOSEPH BRANCH
Associate Justices
J. WILLIAM COPELAND
JAMES G. EXUM, JR.
LOUIS B. MEYER
BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR.
HARRY C. MARTIN
HENRY E. FRYE
Retired Chief Justices
WILLIAM H. BOBBITT
SUSIE SHARP
Retired Justices
J. WILL PLESS, JR.
I. BEVERLY LAKE
DAN K. MOORE
WALTER E. BROCK
J. FRANK HUSKINS
DAVID M. BRITT
Clerk
J. Gregory Wallace
Librarian
Frances H. Hall
•As of 30 June 1983.
12
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
The Supreme Court
At the apex of the North Carolina court system is the
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to
consider and decide questions of law presented in civil
and criminal cases on appeal. The Chief Justice and six
associate justices are elected to eight-year terms by the
voters of the State. There are two terms of the Supreme
Court each year: a Spring Term commencing on the first
Tuesday in February and a Fall Term commencing on the
first Tuesday in September. The Court does not sit in
panels. It sits only en banc, that is, all members sitting on
each case.
Jurisdiction
The only original case jurisdiction exercised by the
Supreme Court is in the censure and removal of judges
upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judicial
Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jurisdic-tion
includes: — cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals
(cases involving substantial constitutional ques-tions
and cases in which there has been dissent in
the Court of Appeals);
— cases on appeal by right from the Utilities Commis-sion
(cases involving final order or decision in a
general rate matter); — criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior
courts (cases in which the defendant has been sen-tenced
to death or life imprisonment); and
— cases in which review has been granted in the
Supreme Court's discretion.
Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly
from the trial courts may be granted when delay would
likely cause subsantial harm or when the workload of the
Appellate Division is such that the expeditious adminis-tration
of justice requires it. However, most appeals are
heard only after review by the Court of Appeals.
Administration
The Supreme Court has general power to supervise
and control the proceedings of the other courts of the
General Court of Justice. The Court has specific power to
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 ses-sions
in the 100 counties is approved yearly, by the
Supreme Court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court, the
Librarian of the Supreme Court Library, and the Appel-late
Division Reporter are appointed by the Supreme
Court.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and
an Assistant Director, who serve at the pleasure of the
Chief Justice. He also designates a Chief Judge from
among the judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief
District Court Judge from among the district judges in
each of the State's 34 judicial districts. He assigns super-ior
court judges, who regularly rotate from district to
district, to the scheduled sessions of superior court in the
100 counties, and he is also empowered to transfer district
court judges to other districts for temporary or special-ized
duty. The Chief Justice appoints three of the seven
members of the Judicial Standards Commission—
a
judge of the Court of Appeals who serves as the Commis-sion's
chairman, one superior court judge and one district
court judge.
Operations of the Court, 1982-83
Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the
1982-83 fiscal year amounted to $1,464,289, an increase
of 7.2% over total 1981-82 expenditures of $1,365,955.
Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 1982-83 con-stituted
1.5% of all General Fund expenditures for the
operation of the entire Judicial Department during the
fiscal year.
A total of 33 1 appealed cases were before the Supreme
Court during the fiscal year, including 122 cases pending
on July 1, 1982 and 209 cases filed during the year. A total
of 188 appealed cases were disposed of, with 143 cases
remaining pending on June 30, 1983.
A total of 65 1 petitions (requests to appeal) were before
the Court during the 1982-83 year, with 563 petitions
disposed of and 88 pending as of June 30, 1983.
More detailed data on the Court's workload is pres-ented
on the following pages.
13
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
Supreme Court Caseload Inventory
July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983
Petitions for Review
Civil domestic
Juvenile
Other civil
Criminal
Postconviction remedy
Administrative agency decision
Total Petitions for Review
Appeals
Civil domestic
Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic
appeals
Juvenile
Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals
Other civil
Petitions for review granted that became other civil
appeals
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment
Other criminal
Petitions for review granted that became other criminal
appeals
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
Extraordinary writs
Advisory opinion
Rule amendments
Motions
Total other proceedings
Pending Pending
7/1/82 Filed Disposed 6/30/83
7 20 23 4
2 2 4
45 154 162 37
32 204 209 27
17 114 123 X
10 44 42 12
113
X
4
122
538
II
12
209
563
15
188
88
2 2
3 2 5
1 1
10 20 20 10
17 29 30 16
9 14 5 IX
47 74 56 65
13 20 24 9
x 24 20 12
4
7
143
3 70 71 2
4 4
13 350 360 3
16 424 435 5
14
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage
July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983
Cases Argued
Civil
Criminal
Total cases argued
70
103
173
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
10
10
183
Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings by the Supreme Court
July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983
Petitions for Review
Civil Domestic
Juvenile
Other Civil
Criminal
Postconviction Remedy
Administrative Agency Decision
Total Petitions for Review
Granted Denied Dismissed/ Withdrawn Total Disposed
2 20 1 23
4 4
29 132 1 162
29 180 209
2 85 36 123
12 30 42
74 451 38 563
Other Proceedings
Extraordinary Writs
Rule Amendments
Advisory Opinion
Motions
Total Other Proceedings
17 54 71
4
360
435
15
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Published Opinion
Case Types
Civil domestic
Juvenile
Other civil
Criminal (death sentence)
Criminal (life sentence)
Other criminal
Postconviction remedy
Administrative agency
decision
Totals
Reversed Total
Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed
: 1 3 6
i
1
7 7 2 17 1 34
4 1 5
36 1 II 3 51
3 3 7 13 26
1 1
5 2 4 7 18
54 13 14 52 142
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Decision
Case Types
Civil domestic
Juvenile
Other civil
Criminal (death sentence)
Criminal (life sentence)
Other criminal
Postconviction remedy
Administrative agency
decision
Totals
Reversed Total
Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed
1 1
10 2 1 13
2 1 2 5
II 1 1 13
2 1 1 4
26 36
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals by Dismissal or Withdrawal
Case Types
Civil domestic
Juvenile
Other Civil
Criminal (death sentence)
Criminal (life sentence)
Other criminal
Postconviction remedy
Administrative agency decision
Totals
Dismissed or
Withdrawn
3
o
5
2
10
16
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
Manner of Disposition of Appeals in the Supreme Court
July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983
DISMISSED/ WITHDRAWN
PER CURIAM DECISIONS
Type of Disposition of Petitions in the Supreme Court
July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983
GRANTED
DISMISSED/ WITHDRAWN
17
f-i
oc
CN —
» ©m
a>
B3
-5 m «•-
oc
r^ Efl
SC «
OS V ~~l CX
/: <
~~
T3
/) C
^ «
o 3
< 7-
K > U CC
£»
09, o t/i
Q
<
U
OJJ
B
£ "3
o c
- a.
< *-
Si 3
>r u
< u
w £
K 0;
X
V
3
>.
*
as
oZ
ex
MM c en
OS V -5 09 o c 08 H 0)
a.
U
"3
41
3
OX) c a
ov
3
ex
L.
3 S3
4>
c '3 OX
C8
4) V
a, q < "3
Eo
u.
(-.
'—
'
—
,
OX
O B 4>
-. 4* _.
O E u
<_ 3 O
>-> OX "B o
so
l~ < E
4- o
OS
ox
ex JM •**
C 04 OJ
cu -. _.
3 "3 o
<
m T3
E
ox
JIB c
0* ^ **
*-*
a
_2
4»
'5 u "i-it
Q. co O
< Q.
< E
o
41
ox U
c c
ox #
~; 08
C a
u.
41
-- 'E
'8 u
ox
o
* 4> Q u
< OS •
i-
0-
Ee
k>
© on
IT) !»-»
-.. OS AQ
-- Q Os
o
08
Q
AQ
O V)
On >>
I 08
3 Q
? 5? oQ
AQ
;q
en
08
AQ
SQ
* *? 08 ©Q
— 08 AQ
® 5? oQ
4)
D.
H
08
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
Eo
u
SO 00 w^ —* (N
-t — <N <"S O —
i
\D —i <N — —i -J-sD
tJ- o <N -i V>
o w-i —' o o
<N O -t -t o O
CN O O in O O
Cs| O <N O O O
— O <^4 O O O
CJ O O r-i O --
o csi en fN o o
O «N PO O O O
O O ^O —i o o
O -4- Tf O O O
O <N iO O O O
o <n r~ o o o
« (J
<u o
c c
5 2
en C
•Jj &0 —
I
o
uB
c
Iu
03
c
I
u
1J
OJ
E
uco
y '>
co
o
0-
u
"B
>.
c
c
E
<
Sc
o
Q.
a
u
o
ja
rn ^>
•a
o
08
41 a
a.
<
o H
03
-O
03
a.
o.
03
-au
o
03
<
IX,
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Appeals Docketed and Disposed of During the Years, 1978-79—1982-83
400.
300.
N
I!
M
B
E
R
O 200.
F-C
A
S
1
s
100.
Appeals Docketed
Appeals Disposed of
209
1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83
19
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years, 1978-79—1982-83
MK>
N
UM
B
I
k
(i
f
(
\
s
I
s
600
400
200
Petitions Docketed
Petitions Allowed
499
65
74
1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83
20
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
Supreme Court Processing Time for Disposed Cases
(Total time in days from docketing to decision)
July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983
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
Totals
Number
of Cases Median Mean
2 — 147.5
5 200 210.0
0.0
l 180 180.0
20 155 214.1
30 155 203.6
5 315 307.0
56 185 201.9
24 135 159.7
20 140 156.3
1 260 260.0
15 150 160.5
9 165 174.3
188 165 192.5
21
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA*
Chief Judge
EARL W. VAUGHN
Judges
R.A. HEDR1CK
GERALD ARNOLD
JOHN WEBB
HUGH A. WELLS
CECIL J. HILL
WILLIS P. WHICHARD
CHARLES L. BECTON
CLIFTON E. JOHNSON
E. MAURICE BRASWELL
EUGENE H. PHILLIPS
SIDNEY S. EAGLES, JR.
Retired Chief Judge
NAOMI E. MORRIS
HUGH B. CAMPBELL
FRANK M. PARKER
Retired Judges
EDWARD B. CLARK
ROBERT M. MARTIN
Clerk
FRANCIS E. DAIL
*Asof 30 June 1983
22
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
The Court of Appeals
The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's
intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the
appeals originating from the State's trial courts. The
Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other
locations in the State as authorized by the Supreme
Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regular
or frequent. Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected by
popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for the
Court is designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court and serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the
Chief Justice.
Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the
Chief Judge responsible for assigning members of the
Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each
judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal number
of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge presides
over the panel of which he or she is a member and
designates a presiding judge for the other panels.
One member of the Court of Appeals, designated by
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serves as chair-man
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; certain final orders or decisions of the
North Carolina State Bar; and the Commissioner of
Insurance; the State Board of Contract Appeals; and
appeals from certain final orders or decisions of the
Property Tax Commission. (Appeals from the decisions
of other administrative agencies lie first within the juris-diction
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)
recommendation would be considered by the Chief Judge
and the six judges next senior in service on the Court of
Appeals (excluding the judge who serves as the Commis-sion's
chairman). Such seven-member panel would have
sole jurisdiction to act upon the Commission's recom-mendation.
Expenses of the Court, 1982-83
Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during the
1982-83 fiscal year totalled $2,025,252, an increase of
4. 1 % over 198 1-82 expenditures of $ 1 ,945,08 1 . Expendi-tures
for the Court of Appeals during 1982-83 amounted
to 2.2% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of
the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year.
This percentage share of the total is virtually identical to
the Court of Appeals' percentage share of the Judicial
Department total in the 1981-82 fiscal year.
Case Data, 1982-83
A total of 1,398 appealed cases were filed before the
Court of Appeals during the period, July 1, 1982 - June
30, 1983. A total of 1,186 cases were disposed of during
the same period. During the same year, a total of 483
petitions and 1 ,673 motions were filed before the Court of
Appeals.
Further detail on the workload of the Court of Appeals
is shown in the tables and graph on the following pages.
23
FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983
Cases on Appeal Filings Dispositions
Civil cases appealed from district courts 283
Civil cases appealed from superior courts 513
Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies 60
Criminal cases appealed from superior courts 542
Total 1,398 1,186
Petitions
Allowed 73
Denied 386
Remanded 1
Total 483 460
Motions
Allowed 1,221
Denied 468
Remanded 2
Total 1,673 1,691
Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions and Motions 3,554 3,337
24
Totals
INVENTORY OF CASES APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 1982-June30, 1983
Judicial
Cases Filed
Other
Total
Cases
Total
Judicial Appeals from Appeals from Superior Court Cases
Division District District Courts Civil Criminal Appeals Filed Disposed
1 1 7 9 10 o 26 55
2 4 8 29 41 27
3 9 22 IK 49 46
4 1 I 14 37 62 49
5 9 9 17 35 54
6 6 8 10 24 15
7 5 13 11 29 23
8 7 16 29 52 55
[] 9 4 9 10 o 23 2!
10 17 7S 29 60 184 168
II L) 12 8 29 22
12 1 1 10 35 56 45
13 4 6 9 19 9
14 5 IS 12 35 34
15A/B* 9 21 13 43 39
16 5 7 2S 40 25
111 17A/B* 2 12 8 22 22
18 17 31 20 68 68
19A/B* 14 19 IX 51 43
20 12 17 13 42 3!
21 29 54 29 92 66
22 8 10 18 36 39
21 9 6 1 i 26 19
[V 24 1 6 5 12 II
25 14 22 16 52 46
26 20 38 40 98 84
27A/B* 9 12 30 51 36
28 6 [9 15 40 26
29 12 13 12 3 7 2 7
30 8 14 2 24 21
283 513 542 Ml 1,398 1,186
* Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 17A and 17B, Districts 19 A and I9B, and Districts 27Aand 27Bare shown.
Separate figures for these districts were not available.
2S
MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983
Cases Disposed by Written Opinion
Judicial Judicial Cases
Division District Affirmed
1 1 22
: [9
3 n
4 24
5 24
6 1 1
7 19
S 33
11 9 16
10 100
1 1 14
12 35
13 8
14 26
15A, B* 31
16 21
111 17A B* 13
18 46
19A, B* 35
20 22
21 42
22 J]
23 17
IV 24 10
25 u
26 5K
27A, B* 24
28 19
24 18
30 17
Cases Affirmed Total Cases
Cases in Part, Reversed by Written Other Cases Total Cases
Reversed in Part Opinion Disposed Disposed
1 1 33 2 35
6 2 27 27
13 45 1 46
13 5 47 2 49
3 1 28 6 34
4 15 15
3 22 1 23
16 1 50 5 55
2 1 19 2 21
44 6 150 18 168
4 1 19 3 22
9 44 1 45
1 9 9
6 1 33 1 34
5 2 38 1 39
3 24 1 25
5 1 19 3 22
is 3 64 4 68
5 1 4! 2 43
6 2 30 1 31
12 5 59 7 66
5 2 38 1 39
2 19 19
1 11 11
6 2 42 4 46
16 3 77 7 84
7 2 33 3 36
3 1 23 3 26
7 25 2 27
4 21 21
TOTALS 826 237 412 1,105 XI 1,186
* Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 17A and 17B, Districts 19 A and 1 9 B, and Districts 27A and 27 Bare shown.
Separate figures for these districts were not available.
26
_ 4»
-** o
o a
H £a
4 c
SB *"" —
Sc0 8-8 J
S 8.5
t/2
ft a o.
£ - o
Q
J a
< 4)
•a w c
a* C5
E a. o
< 4*
o a
O
a.
IT)
5
a
H wi
E
41 K B
.2 Q
D -**
O w -o u Oh us
UJ _©
X 5 H T3 w 4>
as m c
o 00
s
u- -H a 41
u r 1/1 eg
OS O ©
(Si V an
5 *
z B "E
O 3
c
.2
41 Q
H r* **
9© a H On £ 41
On ^* o
Q » <
Z 3
^8
to
zo
SI
H b
a=g H
O (0
£
m< o Cm
>
£2! 1/5 O
._ _4> Hz
UJ
>
z
i^n rmo <n — oo no t^ »n oo o o —* ro in
OS i^i vO f'l On t *
(N OOfl ^ O t W — O >/"> O <n O <~"">
<n oo in r- Tt «n <n
SI U
o
3
— OOOOOOO oooooooo OOOOOOO OOOOOOO — y
oooooooo
oo \D i^i —' m vo vo 't
—'OJroioroOOfN
OOOOOOOO
oo r-- —m o—n on -*3- r^ i r^
cni en m no it) cn| rvi
(N\D(n|0('JvOOIv
lOlTiOOONON—^-^-lO
ONOONOOOONNONOr--
•^TtNOoOND — rn-^-
OOOOOOOO
>/~l (~N| CNl — —
I
— iriOfN — ro-HV-)
ooooo — oo
CNlt^oOONNONOt^r*")
NO — <N *— <N
O ** m <N ro o —< rn
Cn|
no r-~ —' on c-j — o n
if)f*1M"t>O lC\0(N|
r-- tN rs| — cn|
— Tfr<-ii^\OinTfO
M0O'\t\D(Nwirir~
r-4
o — o o o o o OOOOOOO ~*
oo r-- rn in —. o rj
CnI <~n| —i — Cn| — o
o — o o o o o
O NO O O ON o ^r
on oo c\i r- r- en oo
^t — (N iri (N rs
ON On io m oo m en
CA OO en in — rf c~>
»~n| On NO OO nO —• (N
r—~ o on m cn| <* — r~ — en On en en
en O— m On t~- ON ^ Cn|
O * en NO <N r<") Cn|
OOOOOOO
nS
00
— r^irn^ioNor^oo On O — (N fl
SB
^ <>o NO
93 PQ
M<)Ou<NO-Mf1 — — -^ <n rsi cni o4
X
Tf IT) NO r- 0O ON O
rs| <~n| cni rg oni r^ rn
3
C
a
C
^3
-o
c
K)
ITi —
.
f 1 r- jC r- o SO
n m — — DQ •€> T 0>
C
<
m IT) IT) Xi jO O r- —
I
^3N
T ON r*i r ] m
=1
s:
U
Ui
s.
Q
c6 — -1- rNi -1- r~ r~. <r
,
NC r~-
i-
1
JO </> nO -r NO n
1=1 T3
en <N o in O re, r~ r»i
u_ m 00
s
PQ
in
-o
c
O0 (N ri o> r- t JC r*5 ^3 — r~- r i -T m in 1
' N© <
3 o
II
J-.
•j
E
_£3
H uo ^
27
FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
1977-1983
3000
1500
N
I
M
!•;
E
R
I
2000
1500
1000
500
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1981-82 1982-83
Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed cases and petitions (not motions) in the Court of Appeals. During
1982-83, filings exceeded dispositions by 235, the largest difference since 1977.
28
en
c
w
s
._,
w 5
H
GO > cs
CO r,
*=> H CJ
(K
-J K
O 5
o __<
H ,2 °S z u •a 3
CO "-5 u 93
a.
.5
o
03
H J=
*-»
b.
©
z
UQ^
29
JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT*
(As of June 30, 1983)
District
1
13
14
FIRST DIVISION
J. Herbert Small. Elizabeth City
Elbert S. Peel. Jr.. Williamston
David E. Reid, Jr.. Greenville
Herbert O. Phillips. III. Morehead City
Henry L. Stevens. III. Kenansville
James R. Strickland. Jacksonville
Bradford Tillery, Wilmington
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington
Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids
Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro
Charles B. Winberry, Rocky Mount
R. Michael Bruce, Mount Olive
James D. Llewellyn, Kinston
SECOND DIVISION
Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg
James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh
Henry V. Barnett, Jr., Raleigh
Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh
Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh
Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn
Darius B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville
Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville
Edwin L. Johnson, Fayetteville
Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown
Thomas H. Lee, Durham
Anthony M. Brannon, Bahama
John C. Martin, Durham
I5A D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington
15B F. Gordon Battle. Chapel Hill
16 Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton
THIRD DIVISION
District
17A Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., Wentworth
I7B James M. Long, Pilot Mountain
18 Charles T. Kivett, Greensboro
W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro
Edward K. Washington, Greensboro
19A Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer
James C. Davis, Concord
19B Hal H. Walker, Asheboro
20 F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro
William H. Helms, Wingate
21 William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem
Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem
William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem
22 Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville
Peter W. Hairston, Advance
23 Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro
FOURTH DIVISION
24 Ronald W. Howell, Marshall
25 Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory
Claude S. Sitton, Morganton
26 Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte
Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte
Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte
William T. Grist, Charlotte
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte
27A Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia
27B John R. Friday, Lincolnton
28 Robert E. Lewis, Asheville
C. Walter Allen, Asheville
29 Hollis M. Owens, Rutherfordton
30 James U. Downs, Franklin
'In districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed lirst.
<0
SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT
Clarence P. Cornelius, Mooresville
James A. Beatty, Jr., Winston-Salem
Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone
Arthur L. Lane, Fayetteville
John B. Lewis, Jr., Farmville
Donald L. Smith, Raleigh
Russell G. Walker, Asheboro
Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City
EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT
George M. Fountain, Tarboro
Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton
The Conference of Superior Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1983)
A. Pilston Godwin, Jr., Raleigh, President
Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer, President- Elect
D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington, Vice President
James A. Beaty, Jr., Winston-Salem,
Secretary- Treasurer
J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City, and Robert E. Gaines,
Gastonia, Additional Executive Committee Members
J1
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
The Superior Courts
North Carolina's superior courts are the general juris-diction
trial courts for the state. In 1981-82. there were 60
"resident" superior court judges elected to office in the 34
judicial districts for eight-year-terms by Statewide ballot.
In addition, eight "special" superior court judges are
appointed by the Governor for four-year terms.
Jurisdiction
The superior court has original jurisdiction in all fel-ony
cases and in those misdemeanor cases which origi-nate
by grand jury indictment. (Most misdemeanors are
tried first in the district court, from which conviction may
be appealed to the superior court for trial de novo by a
jury. No trial by jury is available for criminal cases in
district court.) The superior court is the proper court for
the trial of civil cases where the amount in controversy
exceeds S 1 0,000. and it has jurisdiction over appeals from
administrative agencies except the Industrial Commis-sion,
certain rulings of the Commissioner of Insurance,
the Board of Bar Examiners of the North Carolina State
Bar. the Board of State Contract Appeals, and the Prop-erty
Tax Commission. Appeals from these agencies lie
directly to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.*
Regardless of the amount in controversy, the original
civil jurisdiction of the superior court does not include
domestic relations cases, which are heard in the district
courts, or probate and estates matters and certain special
proceedings heard first by the clerk of superior court.
Rulings of the clerk are within the appellate jurisdiction
of the superior court.
Administration
The 100 counties of North Carolina were grouped into
34 judicial districts during 1982-83. Each district has at
least one resident superior court judge who has certain
administrative responsibilities for his home district, such
as providing for civil case calendaring procedures. (Crimi-nal
case calendars are prepared by the district attorneys.)
In districts with more than one resident superior court
judge, the judge senior in service on the superior court
bench exercises these supervisory powers.
The judicial districts are grouped into four divisions
for the rotation of superior court judges, as shown on the
map on Page 29. Within the division, a resident superior
court judge is required to rotate among the judicial dis-tricts,
holding court for at least six months in each, then
moving on to his next assignment. A special superior
court judge may be assigned to hold court in any of the
100 counties. Assignments of all superior court judges are
made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under
the Constitution of North Carolina, at least two sessions
(a week each) of superior court are held annually in each
of the 100 counties. The vast majority of counties have
more than the Constitutional minimum of two weeks of
superior court annually. Many larger counties have
superior court in session about every week in the year.
Expenditures
A total of $ 10,256,492 was expended on the operations
of the superior courts during the 1982-83 fiscal year. This
included the salaries and travel expenses for the 68 super-ior
court judges, and salaries and expense for court report-ers
and secretarial staff for superior court judges. The
1982-83 expenditures for the superior courts amounted
to 10.9% of total General Fund expenditures for the
operations of the entire Judicial Department during the
1982-83 fiscal year.
Caseload
Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of
85,488 cases were filed in the superior courts during
1982-83, an increase of 917 cases (1.1%) over the total of
84,571 cases that were filed in 1981-82. There was some
decrease in civil case filings in the superior courts during
1982-83 compared with the previous year (dropping from
14,964 to 13,894). This decrease is probably due to a
statutory amendment, effective July 1, 1982, which pro-vided
that the district court division is the proper division
for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in con-troversy
is $ 10,000 (formerly $5,000) or less. This change
had the effect of shifting some civil cases from the super-ior
courts to the district courts. This small decrease in
civil case filings in the superior courts was more than
offset by an increase in criminal case filings (from 69,607
in 1981-82 to 71,594 in 1982-83).
Superior court case dispositions increased from 82,165
in 1981-82 to 84,797 in 1982-83. However, the disposi-tions
did not quite equal the number of cases filed. As a
result, there was a small increase (1.9%) in the total
number of superior court cases pending, from 35,622 at
the beginning of the fiscal year to a total of 36,313 on
June 30, 1983.
More detailed information on the flow of cases through
the superior courts is included in Part IV of this Report.
endment to Article IV, Section I 2(1) of the State Constitution was approved by the voters at the June, 1982 election, and effective July 15, 1983,
le General Assembly has provided for appeals from the Utilities Commission directly to the Supreme Court. See G.S. 7A-29(b).
32
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1983)
District
1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City
John R. Parker, Elizabeth City
2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington
James W. Hardison, Wiliamston
3 Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton
E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville
Willie L. Lumpkin, III, Morehead City
James E. Martin, Bethel
James E. Regan, Oriental
H. Horton Roundtree, Greenville
4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill
E. Alex Erwin, III, Jacksonville
Walter P. Henderson, Trenton
James N. Martin, Clinton
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville
5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington
Carter T. Lambeth, Wilmington
Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington
Charles H. Rice, III, Wilmington
6 Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck
Robert E. Williford, Lewiston
7 George Britt, Tarboro
James E. Ezzell, Rocky Mount
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson
Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson
8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston
Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro
Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro
9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford
Ben U. Allen, Jr., Henderson
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton
Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford
10 George F. Bason, Raleigh
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh
Narley L. Cashwell, Raleigh
William A. Creech, Raleigh
George R. Greene, Raleigh
Louis W. Payne, Jr., Raleigh
Philip O. Redwine, Raleigh
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh
District
1
1
Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield
William Christian, Sanford
K. Edward Greene, Dunn
W. Pope Lyon, Smithfield
12 Sol. G. Cherry, Fayetteville
Joseph E. Dupree, Raeford
Charles Lee Guy, Fayetteville
Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville
Anna E. Keever, Fayetteville
13 William E. Wood, Whiteville
William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville
Roy D. Trest, Shallotte
14 J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham
Karen B. Galloway, Durham
David Q. LaBarre, Durham
William G. Pearson, II, Durham
15A J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington
W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham
James K. Washburn, Burlington
15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill
Patricia S. Hunt, Hillsborough
Donald L. Paschal, Siler City
16 John S. Gardner, Lumberton
B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg
Charles G. McLean, Lumberton
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton
17A Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville
Robert R. Blackwell, Yanceyville
17B Foy Clark, Mount Airy
Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy
18 Robert L. Cecil, High Point
Robert Bencini, Jr., High Point
William L. Daisy, Greensboro
Thomas G. Foster, Jr., Greensboro
William K. Hunter, High Point
Joseph R. John, Greensboro
Edmund Lowe, High Point
John F. Yeattes, Jr., Greensboro
19A Robert L. Warren, Concord
Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord
Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury
"The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first.
33
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1983)
District
19B L.T. Hammond. Jr.. Asheboro
William M. Neely, Asheboro
20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro
Michael E. Beale. Southern Pines
Ronald W. Burris. Albemarle
Kenneth W. Honneycutt, Monroe
Walter M. Lampley, Rockingham
21 Abner Alexander. Winston-Salem
Joseph J. Gatto. Winston-Salem
James A. Harrill. Jr., Winston-Salem
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem
David R. Tanis. Winston-Salem
22 Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville
George T. Fuller, Lexington
Robert W. Johnson, Statesville
23 Samuel T. Osborne, Wilkesboro
Max F. Ferree, Wilkesboro
Edgar B. Gregory, Wilkesboro
24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland
Charles P. Ginn, Boone
R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk
25 Livingston Vernon, Morganton
Edward J. Crotty, Hickory
Robert A. Mullinax, Newton
L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory
Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton
District
26 James E. Lanning, Charlotte
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte
Resa L. Harris, Charlotte
Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte
William G. Jones, Charlotte
Theodore P. Matus, II, Charlotte
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte
W. Terry Sherrill, Charlotte
T. Michael Todd, Charlotte
27A Lewis Bulwinkle, Gastonia
Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia
J. Ralph Phillips, Gastonia
Donald E. Ramseur, Gastonia
27B George W. Hamrick, Shelby
James T. Bowen, Lincolnton
28 William Marion Styles, Black Mountain
Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden
Robert L. Harrell, Asheville
Peter L. Roda, Asheville
29 Robert T. Gash, Brevard
Loto J. Greenlee, Marion
Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville
Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville
30 Robert Leatherwood, III, Bryson City
J. Charles McDarris, Waynesville
John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy
The Association of District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1983)
J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington, President
Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem, Vice President
E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville, Secretary-Treasurer
George M. Britt, Tarboro
William G. Pearson, II, Durham
L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro
Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden
Additional Executive Committee Members
hief District Court Judge lor each district is listed first.
',4
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
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 142
district court judges serving in 34judicial districts during
1982-83. These judges are elected to four-year terms by
the voters of their respective districts.
A total of 61 1 magistrate positions were authorized as
of June 30, 1983. Of this number, about 100 positions
were specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed by
the senior resident superior court judge from nomina-tions
submitted by the clerk of superior court of their
county, and they are supervised by the chief district court
judge of their district.
Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtu-ally
all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in
most felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary
commitments and recommitments to mental hospitals,
and domestic relations cases. The district courts have
concurrent jurisdiction with the superior courts in gen-eral
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
SI, 000 or less, may be designated a "small claims" case
and assigned by the chief district court judge to a magis-trate
for hearing. Magistrates are empowered to try
worthless check criminal cases when the value of the
check does not exceed $500. In addition, they may accept
written appearances, waivers of trial, and pleas of guilty
in such worthless check cases when the amount of the
check is $500 or less, the offender has made restitution,
and the offender has fewer than four previous worthless
check convictions. Magistrates may accept waviers of
appearance and pleas of guilty in traffic cases, and in
boating, hunting and fishing violation cases,* for which a
uniform schedule of fines has been adopted by the Con-ference
of Chief District Judges. Magistrates also con-duct
initial hearings to fix conditions of release for
arrested defendants, and they are empowered to issue
arrest and search warrants.
Administration
A chief district judge is appointed for each judicial
district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from
among the elected judges in the respective districts. Sub-ject
to the Chief Justice's general supervision, each chief
judge exercises administrative supervision and authority
over the operation of the district courts and magistrates
in his district. Each chiefjudge is responsible for: schedul-ing
sessions of district court and assigningjudges; super-vising
the calendaring of noncriminal cases; assigning
matters to magistrates; making arrangements for court
reporting and jury trials in civil cases; and supervising the
discharge of clerical functions in the district courts.
The chief district court judges meet in conference at
least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual con-ference
adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses and
fines for their violation for use by magistrates and clerks
of court in accepting defendants' waivers of appearance
and guilty pleas.
The Conference of Chief District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1983)
Robert T. Gash, Brevard, Chairman
Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville, Vice Chairman
Expenditures
Total expenditures for the operation of the district
courts in 1982-83 amounted to $18,1 19,464. This is an
increase of 6.4%over 1981-82expenditures of $17,022,936.
Included in this total are the personnel costs of court
reporters and secretaries as well as the personnel costs of
the 142 district court judges and approximately 600 mag-istrates.
The 1982-83 total is 19.2% of the General Fund
expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial
Department, the same percentage share of total Judicial
Department expenditures that the district courts took for
the 1981-82 fiscal year.
Caseload
During 1982-83 the statewide total of district court
filings (civil and criminal) increased 24,262 (1.7%) over
the total number reported for 1981-82. Not including
juvenile proceedings and mental hospital commitment
hearings, the filing total in 1982-83 was 1,445,571. The
motor vehicle criminal case category registered the most
significant increase, 51,270 cases (7.6%) more than the
number of motor vehicle criminal cases in 1981-82. There
were relatively small decreases in the filing totals for the
general civil, civil magistrate, and non-motor vehicle
criminal case categories compared with such totals for
1981-82. The overall trend in total district court case
filings has been upward during the past several years even
though fluctuating increases or decreases may be shown
in the individual case categories.
More detailed information on district court civil and
criminal caseloads and on juvenile case activity is con-tained
in Part IV of this Report.
*Chapter 586, 1983 Session Laws; the uniform schedule of fines adopted by Chief District Judges becomes effective July 1, 1984.
35
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
(As of June 30, 1983)
District
1 H. P. WILLIAMS, JR., Elizabeth City
2 WILLIAM C. GRIFFIN, JR., Williamston
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 J. RANDOLPH RILEY, Raleigh
1
1
JOHN W. TWISDALE, Smithfield
12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville
13 MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Whiteville
14 RONALD L. STEPHENS, Durham
15A GEORGE E. HUNT, Graham
15B WADE BARBER, JR., Pittsboro
16 JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton
District
17A PHILIP W. ALLEN, Wentworth
17B HAROLD D. BOWMAN, Dobson
18 D. LAMAR DOWDA, Greensboro
19A JAMES F. ROBERTS, Concord
19B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro
20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe
21 DONALD K. TISDALE, Winston-Salem
22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington
23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro
24 JAMES THOMAS RUSHER, Marshall
25 ROBERT E. THOMAS, Hickory
26 PETER S. GILCHRIST, Charlotte
27A JOSEPH G. BROWN, Gastonia
27B W. HAMPTON CHILDS, JR., Lincolnton
28 RONALD C. BROWN, Asheville
29 ALAN C. LEONARD, Rutherfordton
30 MARCELLUS BUCHANAN, III, Sylva
The District Attorneys Association
(Officers as of June 30, 1983)
Randolph Riley, Raleigh, President
Ronald C. Brown, Asheville, Vice President
William H. Andrews, Jacksonville, Vice President for
Legislative Affairs
John Smith, Wilmington, Secretary-Treasurer
u,
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
The District Attorneys
The State is divided into 35 prosecutorial districts
which, with one exception, correspond to the 34 judicial
districts. By act of the 1981 Session of the General
Assembly, the 3rd Judicial District was divided into two
separate prosecutorial districts, Prosecutorial Districts
3Aand 3B, effective October 1, 1981. Prosecutorial Dis-trict
3A consists of Pitt County, and Prosecutorial Dis-trict
3B is comprised of Craven, Carteret, and Pamlico
(G.S. 7A-60). A district attorney is elected by the voters in
each of the 35 districts for four-year terms.
Duties
The district attorney represents the State in all criminal
actions brought in the superior and district courts in his
district. In addition to his 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 his district. As of June 30, 1983, a total of 213
assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 35
prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District 26
(Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff (19 assist-ants)
and the district attorney of District 1 7B and District
24 had the smallest staff (two assistants).
Each district attorney is authorized to employ an
administrative assistant to aid in preparing cases for trial
and to expedite the criminal court docket. The district
attorney in 18 of the 35 districts is authorized to employ
an investigatorial assistant who aids in the investigation
of cases prior to trial, and in 10 districts, the district
attorney is authorized to employ a witness coordinator.
1982-83 Caseload
A total of 7 1,594 criminal cases were filed in the super-ior
courts during 1982-83, consisting of 43,708 felony
cases and 27,886 misdemeanor appeals from the district
courts. The total number of filings in the superior courts
(felonies and misdemeanor appeals) in the previous year
was 69,607. The increase of 1,987 cases in 1982-83 repre-sents
a 2.9% increase over the 1981-82 total.
Total criminal cases disposed of by the superior courts
in 1982-83 equalled 70,120. There were 42,966 felony
dispositions; the number of misdemeanor appeals dis-posed
of was 27,154. Compared with 1981-82, total crimi-nal
case dispositions increased by 2,937 cases over the
67,183 cases disposed of in that fiscal year. The median
ages of 1982-83 criminal cases at disposition in the super-ior
courts were 81 days for felony cases and 66 days for
misdemeanor appeals. In 1981-82, the median age of
felony cases at disposition was 73 days, and the median
age at disposition for misdemeanor appeals was 62 days.
Dispositions by jury trial in the superior courts, for
felonies and misdemeanors, totalled 3,999 cases, or 5.7%
of total criminal case dispositions in the superior courts.
This was a decrease from jury dispositions of 3,793 (5.6%
of total dispositions) during the 1981-82 year. As is evi-dent,
a very small proportion of all criminal cases utilize
the great proportion of superior court time and resources
required to handle the criminal caseload.
By contrast, in 1982-83 a majority of criminal case
dispositions in superior courts (38,012 or 54.2%) were
processed on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a
trial. This was virtually the same percentage of guilty plea
dispositions as was reported for 1981-82.
"Dismissal by district attorney"accounted for a signif-icant
percentage of all dispositions during 1982-83: a
total of 19,753 cases, or 28.2% of all dispositions. This
proportion is comparable to that recorded for prior
years. Many of the dismissals involved the situation of
two or more cases pending against the same defendant,
resulting in a plea bargain agreement where the defend-ant
pleads guilty to some charges in exchange for a dis-missal
of others.
There was an increase in the number of speedy trial
dismissals in superior courts, from 63 cases in 198 1-82 to
92 cases in 1982-83.
The total number of criminal cases disposed of in the
superior courts was 1 ,474 cases less than the total number
of cases filed in 1982-83. Consequently, the number of
pending criminal cases in superior court increased from
20,204 at the beginning of the fiscal year to a total at
year's end of 21,678, an increase of 7.3%.
The median age of pending felony cases dropped from
83 days in 1981-82 to 80 days during 1982-83. A similar
decrease was recorded for misdemeanor appeals where
the median age of cases dropped from 69 days in 1981-82
to 66 days in 1982-83.
In the district courts, a total of 1,1 29,032 criminal cases
were filed during 1982-83. This total consisted of 728,5 1
7
motor vehicle criminal cases and 400,515 non-motor ve-hicle
criminal cases. A comparison of total filings in
1982-83 with total filings (1,095,423) in 1981-82 reveals
an increase in district court criminal filing activity of
33,609 cases or 3. 1 %. The increase in motor vehicle crim-inal
case filings was responsible for all of this increase.
Filings in the motor vehicle case category rose by 51,270
cases, from 677,247 cases in 1981-82 to 728,517 cases in
1982-83, an increase of 7.6%,.
As motor vehicle criminal case filings rose in 1982-83,
filings in the non-motor vehicle criminal case category
fell by 17,661 cases (4.2%) from a total of 418,176 in
1981-82 to 400,515 in 1982-83.
Total dispositions during 1982-83 in the motor vehicle
criminal case category amounted to 7 1 6,040 cases. As in
prior years, a substantial portion (399,265 cases or
55.8%) was disposed of by waiver of appearance and
37
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
entry of plea of guilty before a clerk or magistrate. This
substantial number of criminal cases did not, of course,
require action by the district attorneys' offices and should
not be regarded as having been a part of the district
attorneys' "caseload." The remaining 316,775 motor ve-hicle
cases were disposed of by means other than a
waiver. This balance was 14,253 cases, or 4.7% more than
the 302.522 such dispositions in 1981-82. (Due to a
change in statistical reporting procedures, the clerks of
court no longer report motor vehicle criminal cases by
case file number to the Administrative Office of the
Courts. Only summary total numbers of filings and dis-positions
are reported weekly. Therefore, it is not possi-ble
by computer-processing to obtain pending case data
for the motor vehicle criminal case category.)
With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case dispo-sitions,
a total of 397.420 such cases were disposed of in
1982-83. As with superior court criminal cases, the most
frequent method of disposition was by entry of guilty
plea; the next most frequent was dismissal by the district
attorney. Some 150,732 cases, or 38.0%, of the disposi-tions
were by guilty pleas. An additional 92,732 cases, or
23.3%, of the total were disposed of by prosecutor dismis-sal.
Only two case dispositions were by speedy trial dis-missals,
compared with eight such dispositions in 1981-
82. The remaining cases were disposed of by waiver
(12.8%), trial (10.7%), or by other means (15.2%).
During 1982-83, the median age at disposition of non-motor
vehicle criminal cases was 24 days, compared with
22 days at disposition in 1981-82.
Total non-motor vehicle criminal dispositions were
3,095 cases less than total filings for the year. The number
of non-motor vehicle criminal cases pending at year's end
was 67,970, compared with a total of 64, 680 at the begin-ning
of the year, an increase of 4.8% in the number of
pending cases. The median age for pending non-motor
vehicle cases dropped from 61 days in 1981-82 to 59 days
in 1982-83.
Additional information on the criminal caseloads in
superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this
Report.
38
CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT
(As of June 30, 1983)
COUNTY CLERK OF COURT COUNTY
Alamance Louise B. Wilson Johnston
Alexander Seth Chapman Jones
Alleghany Joan B. Atwood Lee
Anson R. Frank Hightower Lenoir
Ashe Virginia W. Johnson Lincoln
Avery Billy J. Vance Macon
Beaufort Thomas S. Payne, III Madison
Bertie Thomas S. Speight Martin
Bladen Hilda H. Coleman McDowell
Brunswick K. Gregory Bellamy Mecklenburg
Buncombe J. Ray Elingburg Mitchell
Burke Major A. Joines Montgomery
Cabarrus Estus B. White Moore
Caldwell Jeanette Turner Nash
Camden Catherine W. McCoy New Hanover
Carteret Mary Austin Northampton
Caswell Janet H. Cobb Onslow
Catawba Eunice W. Mauney Orange
Chatham Janice Oldham Pamlico
Cherokee Rose Mary Crooke Pasquotank
Chowan Lena M. Leary Pender
Clay R. L. Cherry Perquimans
Cleveland Ruth S. Dedmon Person
Columbus Lacy R. Thompson Pitt
Craven Dorothy Pate Polk
Cumberland George T. Griffin Randolph
Currituck Wiley B. Elliot Richmond
Dare Betty Mann Robeson
Davidson Hugh Shepherd Rockingham
Davie Delores C. Jordan Rowan
Duplin John A. Johnson Rutherford
Durham James Leo Carr Sampson
Edgecombe Curtis Weaver Scotland
Forsyth A.E. Blackburn Stanly
Franklin Ralph S. Knott Stokes
Gaston Betty B. Jenkins Surry
Gates Cheryl Holland Swain
Graham O.W. Hooper, Jr. Transylvania
Granville Mary Ruth C. Nelms Tyrrell
Greene Cleo W. McKeel Union
Guilford James Lee Knight Vance
Halifax Ellen C. Neathery Wake
Harnett Georgia Lee Brown Warren
Haywood William G. Henry Washington
Henderson Thomas H. Thompson Watauga
Hertford Richard T. Vann Wayne
Hoke Juanita Edmund Wilkes
Hyde Lenora R. Bright Wilson
Iredell Carl G. Smith Yadkin
Jackson Frank Watson, Jr. Yancey
CLERK OF COURT
Will R. Crocker
Ronald H. Metts
Sion H. Kelly
M.E. Creech
Nellie L. Bess
Lois S. Morris
James W. Cody
Mary K. Wynne
Ruth B. Williams
Robert M. Blackburn
Arthur Ray Ledford
Charles M. Johnson
Rachel H. Comer
Rachel M. Joyner
Louise D. Rehder
R. Jennings White, Jr.
Everitte Barbee
Frank S. Frederick
Mary Jo Potter
Frances W. Thompson
Frances N. Futch
W.J. Ward
W. Thomas Humphries
Sandra Gaskins
Judy P. Arledge
John H. Skeen
Miriam F. Greene
Dixie I. Barrington
Frankie C. Williams
Francis Glover
Joan M. Jenkins
Charlie T. McCullen
C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr.
David R. Fisher
Pauline Kirkman
David J. Beal
Sara Robinson
Marian M. McMahon
Jessie L. Spencer
Nola H. McCollum
Mary Lou M. Barnett
J. Russell Nipper
Richard E. Hunter, Jr.
Timothy L. Spear
John T. Bingham
Shelton Jordan
Wayne Roope
William G. Stewart
Harold J. Long
Arnold E. Higgins
39
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
The Clerks of Superior Court
A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for a four-year
term by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 coun-ties.
The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide special
proceedings and is. ex officio, judge of probate, in addi-tion
to performing record-keeping and administrative
functions for both the superior and district courts of his
county.
Jurisdiction
The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court
includes the probate of wills and administration of dece-dents'
estates. It also includes such "special proceedings"
as adoptions, condemnations of private property under
the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings to
establish boundaries, foreclosures, and certain proceed-ings
to administer the estates of minors and incompetent
adults. The right of appeal from the clerks'judgments in
such cases lies to the superior court.
The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue
search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and
other process necessary to execute the judgments entered
in the superior and district courts of his county. For
certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is auth-orized
to accept defendants' wavier of appearance and
plea of guilty and to impose a fine 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 his
county. Among these duties are the maintenance of court
records and indexes, the control and accounting of funds,
and the furnishing of information to the Administrative
Office of the Courts.
In most counties, the clerk continues to perform cer-tain
functions related to preparation of civil case calen-dars,
and in many counties, the clerk's staff assists the
district attorney in preparing criminal case calendars as
well. Policy and oversight responsibility for civil case
calendaring is vested in the State's senior resident super-ior
court judges and chief district court judges. However,
day-to-day civil calendar preparation is the clerk's respon-sibility
in all districts except those served by trial court
administrators.
Expenditures
A total of S27.804.593 was expended in 1982-83 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 clerks' offices in 1982-83
amounted to 29.5%of the General Fund expenditures for
the operations of the entire Judicial Department.
1982-83 Caseload
During 1 982-83, estate case filings totalled 39, 1 88. This
was an increase of 3.6% over the 37,838 cases filed in
1981-82. Estate case dispositions totalled 38,1 10 cases in
1982-83, or 3.9% more than the previous year's total of
36,691. Filings in 1982-83 exceeded dispositions by 1,078
cases. This produced an increase of the same amount in
the number of estate cases pendingat the end of the year.
A total of 31,835 special proceedings were filed before
the 100 clerks of superior court in 1982-83. This is an
increase of 162 cases (0.5%) over the 31,673 filings in the
previous fiscal year. During the year, total special pro-ceedings
dispositions amounted to 32,003 cases, with a
resulting decrease in the number of cases pending of
0.8%, from 22,380 on June 30, 1982 to 22,212 as of June
30, 1983.
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 1982-83 year was
85,488, and the total number of district court filings, not
including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital
commitment hearings, was 1,445,571.
More detailed information on the estates and special
proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this
Report.
Association of Clerks of Superior Court
(Officers as of June 30, 1983)
George T. Gri
President
Tin, Cumberland County,
Nola H. McCollum, Union County,
First Vice President
Major Joines,
Second Vice
Burke County
' President
David J. Beal,
Secretary
John Johnson
Surry County
, Duplin County
Treasurer
40
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
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 crimi-nal
code, including motor vehicle violations; and for
undisciplined matters, such as running away from home,
being truant, and being beyond the parents' disciplinary
control.
Intake is the screening of complaints alleging delin-quent
or undisciplined behavior by children, to deter-mine
whether petitions should be filed. During the 1982-
83 year a total of 18,520 complaints were brought to the
attention of intake counselors. Of this number, 1 1,137
(60%) were approved for filing, and 7,383 (40%) were not
approved for filing.
Probation and aftercare refer to supervision of chil-dren
in their own communities. Probation is authorized
by judicial order. Aftercare service is provided for juve-niles
after their release from a training school. ( Protective
supervision is also a form of court-ordered supervision
within the community; and this service is combined with
probation and aftercare.)
In 1982-83 a total of 10,591 juveniles were supervised in
the probation and aftercare program.
Expenditures
The Juvenile Services Division is primarily State-funded.
The expenditures for fiscal year 1982-83 totaled
$7,464,930, including $46,182 from a federal grant. This
was an increase of 6% over the 198 1-82 expenditures. The
1982-83 expenditures amounted to 7.9% of all General
Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial
Department, the same percentage share of total Judicial
Department expenditures for the Division as in the pre-vious
fiscal year.
Administration
The Administrator of the Juvenile Services Division is
appointed by the Director of the Administrative Office of
the Courts. A chief court counselor is appointed for each
judicial district by the Administrator of the Juvenile Ser-vices
Division, with the approval of the Chief District
Court Judge and the Administrative Officer of the
Courts. Subject to the Administrator's general supervi-sion,
each chief court counselor exercises administrative
supervision over the operation of the court counseling
services in the respective districts.
Juvenile Services Division Staff
(As of June 30, 1983)
Thomas A. Danek, Administrator
Edward F. Taylor, Assistant Administrator
John T. Wilson, Program Supervisor
Sharon P. Worthington, Education Coordinator
41
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
Juvenile Services Division
(As of June 30, 1983)
Judicial
District C hief Court Counselors
1 Robert Hendrix
: Charles Hough
3 Eve C. Rogers
4 Ida Rav Miles
5 William T. Childs
6 John R. Brady
7 Nancy C. Patteson
8 Harold Hinnant
9 Tommy Lewis
10 Steven J. Williams
1 ! Henry C. Cox
12 Phil T. Utley
n Jimmy Godwin
14 Fred Elkins
15A Harry Derr
15B Harold Rogerson
Judicial
District Chief Court Counselors
16 Robert Hughes
17Aand 17B Martha Lauten
18 J. Manley Dodson
19Aand 19B James Queen
20 Jimmy Craig
21 James J. Weakland
22 Carl T. Duncan
23 Rex Yates
24 Lynn Hughes
25 Lee Cox
26 James Yancey
27A Yvonne Hall
27B Gloria Newman
28 Louis Parrish
29 Kenneth Lanning
30 Betty G. Alley
THE COURT COUNSELORS ASSOCIATION
(Officers for 1982-83)
Executive Committee Members
J. Manley Dodson, President
John A. Auten, Jr., President-elect
Pat Jackson, Secretary
Bill Fishel, Treasurer
Harold Rogerson, Parliamentarian
Board Members
1982-83
Betty Gene Alley
Edward Taylor
Jo Lammonds
1982-84
Jimmy Moore
Eleanor P. Causey
Pam Honeycutt
1982-85
John Brady
Mark Vinson
Horace Walser
42
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
Public Defenders
During 1982-83, there were six public defender offices
in North Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 3, 12, 18, 26,
27A, and 28. (By statute, a public defender office was
established in District 15B, for Orange and Chatham
Counties, in June, 1983, but this office was not opera-tional
until July, 1983.) The public defender for District
28 is appointed by the senior resident superior court
judge from recommendations submitted by the district
bar; for other districts, the appointment is by the Gover-nor
from recommendations of the respective district bars.
Their terms are four years. Each public defender is by
statute provided a minimum of one full-time assistant
public defender and additional full-time or part-time
assistants as may be authorized by the Administrative
Office of the Courts.
Entitlement of Indigents to Counsel
A person is determined to be indigent if he is found
"financially unable to secure legal representation." He is
entitled to State-paid legal representation in: any pro-ceeding
which may result in (or which seeks relief from)
confinement; a fine of $500 or more; or extradition to
another State; a proceeding alleging mental illness or
incapacity which may result in hospitalization, steriliza-tion,
or the loss of certain property rights; and juvenile
proceedings which may result in confinement, transfer to
superior court for a felony trial, or termination of paren-tal
rights.
Most of the cases of State-paid representation of indi-gents
in the districts with public defenders are handled by
the public defender's office. However, the court may in
certain circumstances—such as existence of a potential
conflict of interest—assign private counsel to represent
an indigent defendant. In the other 28 districts, the
assigned private counsel system was the only one used.
Expenditures
A total of $2,219,766 was expended for the operation
of the six public defenders' offices during 1982-83. This
was an increase of $ 104,559 (4.9%) over the 198 1 -82 total
of $2,1 15,207.
1982-83 Caseload
The six public defender offices represented a total of
16,403 defendents during 1982-83. This was an increase
of 1,206 defendants, or 7.9%, over the 15,197 defendants
represented during 1981-82.
Additional information concerning the operation of
these offices is found in Part III of this Annual Report.
PUBLIC DEFENDERS
(As of June 30, 1983)*
District 3
Donald C. Hicks, III, Greenville
District 12
Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville
District 18
Wallace G. Harrelson, Greensboro
District 26
Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte
District 27A
Curtis O. Harris, Gastonia
District 28
J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville
*Note: John Kirk Osborn took office as Public Defender
for District 15B on July 1, 1983.
The Association of Public Defenders
(Officers as of June 30, 1983)
Adam Stein, President
Donald Hicks, III, Vice President
Steve Ward, Secretary- Treasurer
43
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
The Office of the Appellate Defender
(Staff as of June 30, 1983)
Adam Stein, Appellate Defender
Assistant Appellate Defenders
Nora Elizabeth B. Henry
Malcolm R. Hunter, Jr.
Lorinzo L. Jovner
Ann B. Petersen
Marc D. Towler
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.) In accord with the assignments made
by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the Appel-late
Defender and his staff to provide criminal defense
appellate services to indigent persons who are appealing
their convictions to either the Supreme Court or the
Court of Appeals.
The Appellate Defender is appointed by the Governor
for a term of four years, but in carrying out his duties he is
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.
1982-83 Caseload
As of July 1, 1982, the Appellate Defender had 43 cases
pending in the North Carolina Supreme Court. During
the 1982-83 year, a total of 45 additional appeals to the
Supreme Court were assigned to the Appellate Defend-er's
Office, and during that year a total of 46 cases in the
Supreme Court were disposed of. This left 42 cases pend-ing
as of June 30, 1983. During the 1982-83 year, the
Appellate Defender and his staff filed a total of 43 briefs
and 70 petitions in the Supreme Court.
As of July 1, 1982, the Appellate Defender had 139
cases pending in the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
During the 1982-83 year, a total of 121 additional appeals
to the Court of Appeals were assigned to the Appellate
Defender's Office, and during that year, a total of 160
cases in the Court of Appeals were disposed of. This left
100 cases pending as of June 30, 1983. During the 1982-83
year, the Appellate Defender and his staff filed a total of
128 briefs and 16 petitions in the Court of Appeals.
44
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
The North Carolina Courts Commission
(Members as of June 30, 1983)
Appointed by the Governor
H. Parks Helms, Charlotte, Chairman
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Wade Barber, Jr., Pittsboro
District Attorney
Daniel T. Blue, Jr., Raleigh
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
David M. Britt, Raleigh
Retired Associate Justice, N.C. Supreme Court
George Kornegay, Mount Olive
Louise B. Wilson, Graham
Clerk of Court
Vacancy
Appointed by President of the Senate
(Lieutenant Governor)
Henson P. Barnes, Goldsboro
Member, N.C. Senate
Fielding Clark, II, Hickory
Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown
Superior Court Judge
E. Lawrence Davis, Winston-Salem
Rebecca B. Hundley, Thomasville
R.C. Soles, Jr., Tabor City
Member, N.C. Senate
Howard F. Twiggs, Raleigh
Vacancy
Appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Bobby R. Etheridge, Angier
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Robert C. Hunter, Marion
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Harold L. Kennedy, Jr., Winston-Salem
Ralph S. Knott, Louisburg
Clerk of Court
Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids
District Court Judge
Marvin D. Musselwhite, Jr., Raleigh
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Dennis A. Wicker, Sanford
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Vacancy
Ex-Officio (Non-Voting)
Robert M. Clay, Raleigh
N.C. Bar Association Representative
William K. Davis, Raleigh
N.C. State Bar Representative
Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Raleigh
Administrative Officer of the Courts
The North Carolina Courts Commission was reestab-lished
by the 1979 General Assembly "to make continu-ing
studies of the structure, organization, jurisdiction,
procedures and personnel of the Judicial Department
and of the General Court of Justice and to make recom-mendations
to the General Assembly for such changes
therein as will facilitate the administration of justice".
Initially, the Commission was comprised of 15 voting
members, with five each appointed by the Governor, the
President of the Senate (Lieutenant Governor), and the
Speaker of the House. The Commission also had three ex
officio members as shown above.
The 1981 General Assembly amended the statutes per-taining
to the Courts Commission, to increase the
number of voting members from 15 to 23, with the Gov-ernor
to appoint seven voting members, the President of
the Senate to appoint eight voting members, and the
Speaker of the House to appoint eight voting members.
The non-voting ex officio members remained the same: a
representative of the North Carolina Bar Association, a
representative of the North Carolina State Bar, and the
Administrative Officer of the Courts.
The 1983 Session of the General Assembly further
amended G.S. 7A-506, to revise the voting membership
of the Commission. Effective July 1, 1983, the Commis-sion
is to consist of 24 voting members, six to be
appointed by the Governor; six to be appointed by the
Speaker of the House; six to be appointed by the Presi-
45
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
The North Carolina Courts Commission
dent of the Senate: and six to be appointed by the Chief
Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Gov-ernor
continues to appoint the Chairman of the Commis-sion,
from among its legislative members. The non-voting
ex officio membership of three persons remains
the same.
Of the six appointees of the Chief Justice, one is to be a
Justice of the Supreme Court, one is to be a Judge of the
Court of Appeals, two are to be judges of superior court,
and two are to be judges of district court.
Of the six appointees of the Governor, one is to be a
district attorney, one a practicing attorney, one a clerk of
superior court, and three are to be members or former
members of the General Assembly and at least one of
these shall not be an attorney.
Of the six appointees of the Speaker of the House, at
least three are to be practicing attorneys, and three are to
be members or formers members of the General Assem-bly,
and at least one of these three is not to be an attorney.
Of the six appointees of the President of the Senate, at
least three are to be practicing attorneys, three are to be
members or former members of the General Assembly,
and at least one is to be a magistrate.
During the 1982-83 year the Courts Commission had a
total of eleven meetings. The Commission submitted its
main report to the General Assembly in February, 1983,
and a supplementary report on the counsel-for-indigents
program in April, 1983.
The following Commission proposals were approved
at the 1983 General Assembly:
• Statutory amendments providing for direct appeal
to the N.C. Supreme Court of general rate decisions
of the Utilities Commission, in lieu of such appeals
going first to the N.C. Court of Appeals (Chapter
526, 1983 Session Laws).
• Statutory amendments relating to service of process
in summary ejectment and small claims cases (Chap-ter
332, 1983 Session Laws).
• Statutory amendments to provide that certain dis-covery
documents are not to be filed with the clerk
unless and until needed for trial (Chapter 201, 1983
Session Laws).
• Statutory amendments to establish a District Attor-ney
Conference and provide for staff (Chapter 761,
1983 Session Laws).
• Proposed constitutional amendment to provide that
Attorney General and District Attorneys must be
duly licensed to practice law in North Carolina,
approved by General Assembly to be on ballot in
November, 1984 (Chapter 298, 1983 Session Laws).
• Statutory amendments to provide for standard con-ditions
of probation (Chapter 561, 1983 Session
Laws).
• Statutory amendments providing for increases in
court costs and fees (Chapter 713, 1983 Session
Laws).
• Statutory amendments to provide increase in pay for
jurors (Chapter 88, 1983 Session Laws).
The following recommendations of the North Carolina
Courts Commission were introduced in the General
Assembly during the 1983 Session and remain pending in
committee. These are eligible for consideration at the
"short " session in June, 1984:
• Statutory amendments to provide for temporary
recall of a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, to
serve on either the Supreme Court or the Court of
Appeals; and to authorize the Chief Justice to recall
retired justices or judges to expedite the work of the
appellate courts (H 310).
• Statutory amendments to authorize the presiding
judge in a civil action or special proceeding to award
reasonable attorney fees for the prevailing party
upon finding that there was a complete absence of a
justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the
losing party (H 474).
• Statutory amendments to provide that certain minor
traffic offenses would be civil infractions rather than
criminal offenses (H 491).
• Statutory amendments to provide credit for law
enforcement and court-related experience, for pur-poses
of setting magistrates' salary (H 473).
• Statutory amendments to provide that the Adminis-trative
Office of the Courts, instead of State Bar
Council, have authority and responsibility for adopt-ing
regulations for determining indigency and assign-ing
state-paid counsel (H 1285).
One recommendation of the Commission (H 447), to
authorize the presiding judge to have jury selection pro-ceedings
held in the county of residence of the jurors
instead of in the county where the case is to be tried,
where it is necessary to select jurors from another county,
received an unfavorable report by the House Committee.
46
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
The Judicial Standards Commission
(Members as of June 30, 1983)
Appointed by the Chief Justice
Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Arnold,
Fuquay-Varina, Chairman
Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright,
Greensboro
District Court Judge L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro
Appointed by the Governor
Susan Whittington, Wilkesboro, Secretary
Veatrice C. Davis, Fayetteville
Elected by the Council of the N.C. State Bar
Jerome B. Clark, Jr., Fayetteville, Vice Chairman
E. K. Powe, Durham
Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary
THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION
July 1, 1982 - June 30, 1983
The Judicial Standards Commission was established
by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional
amendment approved by the voters at the general elec-tion
in November 1972.
Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Su-preme
Court may censure or remove any judge for wilful
misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure to per-form
his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice that brings the judicial
office into disrepute. In addition, upon recommendation
of the Commission, the Supreme Court may remove any
judge for mental or physical incapacity interfering with
the performance of his duties, which is, or is likely to
become, permanent.
Where a recommendation for censure or removal
involves a justice of the Supreme Court, the recommen-dation
and supporting record is filed with the Court of
Appeals which has and proceeds under the same author-ity
for censure or removal of a judge. Such a proceeding
would be heard by the Chief Judge of the Court of
Appeals and the six judges senior in service, excluding the
Court of Appeals judge who by law serves as the Chair-man
of the Judicial Standards Commission.
In addition to a recommendation of censure or remov-al,
the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary measure
known as a reprimand. The reprimand is a mechanism
administratively developed for dealing with inquiries
where the conduct involved does not warrant censure or
removal, but where some action is justified. Since the
establishment of the Judicial Standards Commission in
1973, reprimands have been issued in eleven instances
covering 13 inquiries.
During the 1 July 1982 - 30 June 1983 fiscal year, the
Judicial Standards Commission met on the following
dates: 10 September 1982, 22 September 1982, 1 October
1982, 5 November 1982, 6 January 1983, 16 February
1983,4 March 1983, 1 April 1983, and 13 May 1983. In
addition, the Commission convened on 4 January 1983
and 21 June 1983 for hearings in two inquiries.
A complaint or other information against a judge,
whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the
Commission on its own motion, is designated as an
"Inquiry Concerning a Judge. "Twenty-two such inquir-ies
were pending as of 1 July 1982, and 82 inquiries were
filed during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a total
workload of 104 inquiries.
During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 75
inquiries, and 29 inquiries remained pending at the end of
the fiscal year.
The determinations of the Commission regarding the
75 inquiries disposed of during the fiscal year were as
follows:
(1) sixty-five inquiries were determined to involve
matters for appeal or other legal remedy, evident-iary
rulings, length of sentences, or other matters
not within the Commission's jurisdiction rather
than questions of judicial misconduct;
(2) seven inquiries were determined to involve allega-tions
of conduct which did not rise to such a level as
would warrant investigation by the Commission;
(3) two inquiries were determined to warrant no
further action following completion of preliminary
investigations; and
(4) one inquiry was determined to warrant a recom-mendation
of removal following a hearing in the
matter.
47
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83
The recommendation of removal filed by the Commis- (1) eleven inquiries were awaiting initial review by the
sion on 7 February 1983 in Inquiry Concerning a Judge, Commission; and
No. "4 (J. Wilton Hunt. Sr., Respondent), was adopted (2) eighteen inquiries covered in five preliminary inves-by
the Supreme Court on 3 May 1983. In re Hunt, 308 tigative files wereawaiting completion of the inves-
N.C. 328 (1983). tigation or were subject to other action by the
Of the 29 inquiries pending at the end of the fiscal year: Commission.
48
PART III
COURT RESOURCES
• Financial
• Personnel
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
Under the State Constitution the operating expenses of
the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts)
"other than compensation to process servers and other
locally paid non-judicial officers" are required to be paid
from State funds. It is customary legislative practice for
the General Assembly to include appropriations for the
operating expenses of all three branches of State govern-ment
in a single budget bill, for a two-year period ending
on June 30 of the odd-numbered years. The budget for
the second year of the biennium is generally modified
during the even-year legislative session.
Building facilities for the appellate courts are provided
by State funds, but, by statute, the county governments
are required to provide from county funds for adequate
facilities for the trial courts within each of the 100
counties.
Appropriations from the State's General Fund for
operating expenses for all departments and agencies of
State government, including the Judicial Department,
totalled $3,488,908,246 for the 1982-83 fiscal year.
(Appropriations from the Highway Fund and appropria-tions
from the General Fund for capital improvements
and debt servicing are not included in this total.)
The appropriation from the General Fund for the
operating expenses of the Judicial Department for 1982-
83 was $93,927,824. As illustrated in the chart below, this
General Fund appropriation for the Judicial Department
comprised 2. 7% of the General Fund appropriations for
the operating expenses of all State agencies and depart-ments.
(The above appropriation amounts include
$2,785,856 for accrued attorney fees for indigent defend-ants
paid in July 1983.)
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
APPROPRIATION
$93,927,824
2.7%
51
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
Appropriations from the State's general fund for oper-ating
expenses o\ the Judicial Department over the past
five fiscal years are shown in the table below and in the
graph at the top of the following page. For comparative
purposes, appropriations from the general fund for oper-ating
expenses of all State agencies and departments
(including the Judicial Department) for the last five fiscal
years are also shown in the table below and in the second
graph on the following page.
APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES
Judicial Department All State Agencies
Fiscal Year
1978-1979
19"9-1980
1980-1981
1981-1982
1982-1983
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INCREASE, 1978-1983
Appropriation
63,685,178
71,616,057
82,929,174
89,631,765
93,927,824
% Increase over
previous year
13.08%
12.45%
15.80%
8.08%
4.79%
10.84%
Appropriation
2,452,011,095
2,761,002,481
3,140,949,832
3,339,761,674
3,488,908,246
% Increase over
previous year
11.79%
12.60%
13.76%
6.33%
4.47%
9.79%
During the past decade, including the five-year period
covered by the above table, inflation has been a signifi-cant
factor in the national economy. For example, during
1979-80 according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the
average person spent for goods and services more than
twice the amount required for the same goods and ser-vices
in 1967.
The greatest percentage increase in Judicial Depart-ment
appropriations during the last five years was for the
1980-8 1 fiscal year. The increase for that year was due in
large measure to a 10% pay increase for Judicial Branch
personnel, with the same pay increase provided for per-sonnel
of all State government agencies.
Fiscal year 1982-83 shows the smallest percentage
increase in Judicial Department appropriations during
the five-year period. This decline in the percentage of
increase is consistent with the decline in the percentage of
increase for all State government agejicies.
52
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
; 100,000,000
90,000,000
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses
Of the Judicial Department, 1978-79 — 1982-83
$93,927,824
$89631 765
$«32,929,1 74
$'n,6i6,o:57
$<S3.685.1 78
1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83
$3,500.
3,250.
3,000.
2,750.
2,500.
2,250.
2,000.
1,750.
1,500,
1,250.
1,000.
750:
500,
250.
000,000
000,000
000,000
000,000
000,000
000,000
000,000
000,000
000,000
000,000
000,000
000,000
000,000
000,000
General Fund Appropriations for Operational Expenses
Of All State Agencies and Departments, 1978-79 — 1982-83
$3,488,908,246
$3,339,761, 674
$3, 140,949, 6S2
$2,'761,002,*181
$? 45? 01 1 0Q5
1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83
53
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES
July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983
General Fund expenditures, rounded to the nearest
dollar, for operating expenses of the Judicial Department
during the 1982-83 fiscal year totalled $94,207,213.
divided among the major budget classifications as shown
below. Expenditures for LEAA-funded projects in the
Judicial Department totalled $216,871, for a grand total
of $94,424,084 in Judicial Department expenditures.
Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
Superior Courts
District Courts
Clerks of Superior Court
Juvenile Probation and Aftercare
Legal Representation for Indigents
Assigned private counsel $9,147,427
Public defenders $2,219,766
Special counsel at mental hospitals $150,396
Support services (expert witness fees, professional examinations, transcripts) $441,232
Appellate Defender Services $325,297
District Attorney Offices
Administrative Office of the Courts
General Administration $1,773,126
Information Services $1,314,097
Warehouse & Printing $253,296
Judicial Standards Commission
Total General Fund Expenditures
LEAA-Funded Projects
TOTAL
%of
Amount Total
1,464,289 1.5
2,025,252 2.2
10,256,492 10.9
18,119,464 19.2
27,804,593 29.5
7,464,930 7.9
12,284,119 13.0
11,362,203
3,340,519
85,354
$94,207,213
216,871
$94,424,084
12.1
3.6
I
100.0
54
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
Expenditures, July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983
DISTRICT COURTS
19.2%
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
OF THE COURTS
3.6%
SUPERIOR COURTS
10.9%
CLERKS
OF
SUPERIOR
COURT
29.5%
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
12.1%
COURT OF APPEALS 2.2%
SUPREME COURT 1.5%
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
FOR INDIGENTS 13.0%
JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 0.1%
JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 7.9%
As the above chart illustrates, the bulk of Judicial
Department expenditures goes for operation of the
State's trial courts. Operation of the superior courts took
10.9% of total expenditures. Operation of the district
courts (including magistrates, judges and court reporters)
took 19.2% of the total. An additional 29.5% went to
operate the offices for the 100 clerks of superior court, to
pay jurors' and witnesses' fees and to provide office
equipment and supplies and postage and telephone
service.
The total General Fund expenditures of $94,207,215
for 1982-83 represents a 6.4% increase over expenditures
of $88,53 1 ,892 in 1 98 1 -82, an increase in keeping with the
trend in recent years, as illustrated in the chart below.
; 100,000.000
90,000,000
80,000,000
70,000,000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
General Fund Expenditures For The Judicial Department
Fiscal Years 1978-79 — 1982-83
$94,20/,215
sxx <m xQi wts&am
$$U ,278,5!50
$7 1,077,5*>1
$6 2,245,9:.3
1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 19X2-83
55
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
Department Receipts
July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983
Receipts for the Judicial Department in the 1982-83
fiscal year totalled $54.998,8 1 5.72. The several sources of
these receipts are shown in the table below. As in the
previous years, the major source of receipts is the assess-ment
of "court costs" in superior and district courts, paid
b\ litigants in accordance with the schedule of costs and
fees set out in G.S. 7 A-304 et seq.\ these payments consti-tuted
59.76% of the total receipts during 1982-83. Fines
and forfeitures made up 37.75% of the total. Receipts in
the remaining categories — Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals filing fees, sales of Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals Reports and payments on indigent representa-tion
judgements — made up less than three percent of the
total.
Source of Recepits
Supreme Court Fees
Court of Appeals Fees
Superior and District
Court Costs
Fines and Forfeitures
Sales of Appellate
Division Reports
Payments on Indigent
Representation
Judgements
Total
Amount
$ 18,147.70
32,164.89
32,865,678.99
20,762,988.44
202,091.48
1,117,744.22
$54,998,815.72
%of
Total
.03
.06
59.76
37.75
.37
2.03
100.00
This total of $54,998,815.72 is an increase of 2.81%
over total 1 98 1 -82 receipts of $53,493,059.90. The graph
below illustrates increases in recent years in total Judicial
Department receipts.
S60,000,000
50.000.000
40.000.000
30.000.000
20,000 000
10.00'
Judicial Department Receipts, 1978-79 — 1982-83
$51 913 089 25 $53,493,059.90 $54,998,815 .72
S48,060,916 _ $49,311,080.74
978-79 981-82 1982-83
'(>
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts
(July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983)
As required by the State Constitution, fines, penalties
and forfeitures collected by the courts in criminal cases
are distributed to the respective counties in which the
cases are tried. These funds must be used by the counties
for the support of the public schools.
A uniform schedule of court costs for civil and criminal
cases, comprised of a variety of fees, is set by statute for
cases filed in the superior and district courts. Statutes
prescribe the distribution of these fees and provide that
certain fees shall be devoted to specific uses. For exam-ple,
a facilties fee is included in court costs when costs are
assessed, and this fee is paid over to the respective county
or municipality which provided the facility used in the
case. These fees must be utilized by the counties and
municipalities to provide and maintain courtrooms and
related judicial facilities.
Officer fees (for arrest or service of process) are
included, where applicable, in the costs of each case filed
in the trial courts. If a municipal officer performed these
services in a case, the fee is paid over to the respective
municipality. Otherwise, all officer fees are paid to the
respective counties in which the cases are filed.
A jail fee is included in the costs of each case where
applicable; and these fees are distributed to the respective
county or municipality whose facilties were used. Most
jail facilties in the State are provided by the counties.
A fee for the Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and
Retirement Fund is included as a part of court costs when
costs are assessed in a criminal case. As required by
statute, the Judicial Department remits these fees to the
State Treasurer, for deposit in the Law Enforcement
Officers Benefit and Retirement Fund.
Except as indicated, all superior and district court
costs collected by the Judicial Department are paid into
the State's General Fund.
When private counsel or a public defender is assigned
to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal case the
trial judge sets the money value for the services rendered.
If the defendant is convicted, a judgment lien is entered
against him for such amount. Collections on these
judgements are paid into the State's General Fund, as are
appellate court fees and proceeds from the sales of appel-late
division reports.
Remitted to State Treasurer
Supreme Court Fees
Court of Appeals Fees
Sales of Appellate Division Reports
Payments on Indigent Representation Judgments
Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and
Retirement Fund Fees
Other Superior and District Court Fees
Total to State Treasurer
Di