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

              X 13
101: m/to
C. I
North Carolina State Library.
Raleigh
SNortlj Carolina Courts
1979-80 APR
6
'981
Annual Report
of tl|0
JV&mmistrattue <K)fftce of ttje Courts
The Cover: The Madison County Courthouse, in Marshall, North Carolina, was
completed in 1907. It is a two-story Neo-Classical Revival brick structure, a style
which significantly influenced courthouse design in North Carolina from the 1890\s
to the 1930Y
NORTH CAROLINA COURTS
1979-80
ANNUAL REPORT
of the
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
JUSTICE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
To The Honorable, The ChiefJustice of
The Supreme Court of North Carolina
In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes I hereby transmit the Four-teenth
Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1, 1979 -
June 30, 1980.
Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation,
and present process 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 Systems
Division. Among court officials, 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. Without the daily, responsible work of clerk personnel across the State, this report would
not have been possible.
Bert M. Montague
Director
January, 1981
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Parti
The 1979-80 Judicial Year In Review
The 1979-80 Judicial Year In Review
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations
Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 7
The Present Court System 11
Organization and Operations in 1979-80
The Supreme Court 15
The Court of Appeals 21
The Superior Courts 29
The District Courts 33
District Attorneys 36
Clerks of Superior Court 39
Public Defenders 41
Administrative Office of the Courts 42
The Judicial Planning Committee 47
The N.C. Courts Commission 49
The Judicial Standards Commission 50
Part III
Court Resources
Judicial Department Finances
Appropriations 53
Expenditures 56
Receipts 58
Distribution of Receipts 59
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 63
Judicial Department Personnel 69
Part IV
Courts Caseload Data
Superior Court Division Caseload Data 77
District Court Division Caseload Data 117
Tables, Charts and Graphs
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations
Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the
Present Court System 10
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina
Trial Courts 13
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 14
Supreme Court, Caseload Inventory, 1979-80 16
Supreme Court, Cases Filed, 1979-80 16
Supreme Court, Manner of Disposition of Cases, 1979-80 16
Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Opinions Rendered, 1979-80 17
Supreme Court, Petitions Filed, 1979-80 18
Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed, 1979-80 19
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 20
Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1979 22
Court of Appeals, Inventory of Cases Appealed, 1979 24
Court of Appeals, Inventory of Petitions and Motions, 1979 , 25
Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 26
Judges of Superior Court 27
District Court Judges 31
District Attorneys 35
Clerks of Superior Court 38
Organization of the Administrative Office of the Courts 42
The Judicial Planning Committee 47
The N.C. Courts Commission 49
The Judicial Standards Commission 50
PART III
Court Resources
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department, 1979-80 53
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department, 1975-80 54
General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of all
State Agencies and Judicial Department, 1975-80 55
General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department
Operations, 1979-80 56
Judicial Department Receipts, 1975-80 58
Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures collected by the
Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 60
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 63
Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 64
Assigned Counsel, Cases and Expenditures 65
Judicial Department Personnel 69
Part IV
Courts Caseload Data
Superior Courts, Caseload, 1979-80 78
Superior Courts, Caseload Trends, 1970-1980 79
Superior Courts, Civil Cases Trends, 1970-1980 80
Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 81
Superior Courts, Civil Cases Inventory, 1979-1980 82
Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Methods of Disposition, 1979-1980 85
Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, 1979-1980 86
Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 89
Superior Courts, Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings, 1974-1980 94
Superior Courts, Inventory of Estates and Special Proceedings, 1979-1980 95
Superior Courts, Trends in Criminal Cases, 1970-1980 98
Superior Courts, Inventory of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 99
Superior Courts, Methods of Disposition of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 102
Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 103
Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 106
District Courts
District Courts
District Courts
District Courts
District Courts
District Courts
District Courts
District Courts
District Courts
District Courts
District Courts
District Courts
District Courts
District Courts
District Courts
District Courts
Filings and Dispositions, 1979-1980 118
Median Ages of Cases, 1979-1980 119
Caseload Trends, 1971-1980 120
Caseload Trends of Civil Cases, 1971-1980 121
Filings and Dispositions of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 122
Civil Caseload Inventory, 1979-1980 123
Methods of Disposition of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 126
Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 127
Ages of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 132
Offenses and Conditions in Juvenile Petitions, 1979-1980 137
Adjudicatory Hearings, Juvenile Petitions, 1979-1980 140
Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases, 1971-1980 143
Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory, 1979-1980 144
Criminal Cases, Methods of Disposition, 1979-1980 147
Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition, 1979-1980 148
Ages of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 153
Rankings of Judicial Districts In Terms of Total Caseload Disposed Of,
Superior Court and District Court Cases 161
Rankings of Counties In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of,
Superior and District Court Cases 162
in
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1980nort
PARTI
THE 1979-1980 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
THE 1979-80 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, 1979 and ended June 30, 1980.
The Workload of the Courts
During 1979-80 there were some substantial increases
in the workload of North Carolina's courts, at both the
appellate and trial court levels. As set out in more detail
in Part II of this Report, filings in the Supreme Court in-creased
by 29% to 243 cases filed during the Court's fall
1979 and Spring 1980 terms, compared with 188 cases
during the Fall 1978 and Spring 1979 terms. There was a
substantial increase in the number of opinions filed by
the Court: from 162 rendered in 1978-79 to 193 in 1979-
80, an increase of 19%. Petitions docketed in the Court
rose 23.6% (from 499 in 1978-79 to 617 in 1979-80), and
there was a 10.8% increase in the number of petitions
allowed by the Court (65 in 1978-79, 72 in 1979-80).
In the Court of Appeals, filings in calendar year 1979
rose to 1,204 cases, an increase of 2.5% over 1978 filings
of 1,174 cases. There was a corresponding rise in case
dispositions: from 1,133 cases disposed in 1978 to 1,190
in 1979, an increase of 5.0%. Petitions filed in the Court
rose from 351 in 1978 to 532 in 1979, a 52% increase.
(Petitions as counted here are largely comprised of re-quests
for extraordinary remedies. Data is reported
from the Court of Appeals on a calendar year rather
than a fiscal year basis.)
More detailed data on the appellate courts is included
in Part II.)
In the superior courts, filings of both civil and crimi-nal
cases increased by 9.1% to a total of 74,899 cases
filed in 1979-80 (compared with 68,625 cases filed in
1978-79). Superior court case dispositions also rose, to a
total of 72,983 civil and criminal cases disposed of in
1979-80 — 10.7% higher than the 1978-79 total of 65,9 1
1
cases disposed of. But though dispositions increased at a
slightly faster rate than filings, there were more cases
filed in superior courts in 1979-80 than were disposed of,
and the number of cases pending at the beginning of the
year (31,356) rose six percent to a total of 33,272 cases
pending in the superior courts by the end of the year.
Operations of the superior courts are summarized in
Part II of this Report; detailed data on the caseloads in
the 100 counties and 33 judicial districts are presented in
Part IV.
The increase in cases filed in North Carolina's district
courts was a small one in 1979-80. Total filings of civil
and criminal cases rose from 1,432,067 in 1978-79 to
1,458,647 in 1979-80, an increase of less than two per-cent.
Dispositions also rose, although at a slower rate:
from 1,402,518 in 1978-79 to 1,415,924 in 1979-80, an in-crease
of just under one percent. The net result was a
substantial increase in the number of civil and criminal
cases pending in the district courts. Total cases pending
rose from 200,316 pending on July 1, 1979 to 243,039
pending on June 30, 1980; this represents an increase of
21.%
The small increase in the combined (civil and crimi-nal)
total of district court case filings results from two
conflicting trends. Filings of district court civil cases
continued to rise sharply: the 1979-80 total (315,867
cases) is thirteen percent above the previous year's
(279,548), which was in turn about six percent higher
than the total for 1978. Filings of district court civil
cases have more than doubled since 1972. On the other
hand, filings of district court criminal cases decreased
for the second year in a row. Again filings of traffic cases
were lower in 1979-80 than they were in 1978-79: the to-tal
dropped from 796,227 cases filed in 1978-79 to
777,264 filed in 1979-80. This decrease more than offset
a small increase in the numbers of other district court
criminal cases filed.
Whether the numbers of traffic cases brought to
North Carolina's courts will continue to decline in the
future is, of course, difficult to say. The reduced num-bers
in the past two reporting periods are probably
related to changes in automobile owners' driving habits
- changes which are also reflected in recently reported
decreases in State gasoline tax revenues. It seems likely
that higher gasoline prices are prompting private
automobile owners to drive less than they would
otherwise, and at lower speeds.
The possible implications of these trends for the court
system are potentially profound. Although it may ap-pear
that the demand for judicial resources is not in-creasing
at a very drastic rate because the sharp rise in
civil case filings is numerically diminished by decreases
in traffic case filings, more civil cases than criminal cases
require a hearing or trial by a judge or magistrate. In
1979-80 almost six out of every ten traffic cases disposed
of were disposed of by the defendant's waiver of ap-pearance
and plea of guilty before a magistrate or clerk
of superior court staff — a procedure which requires a
minimum of time and effort. Most civil cases, on the
other hand, go to trial before a magistrate (about 60% of
the total disposed of in 1979-80) or a judge (an ad-ditional
21%) or both. In terms of the demand for the
court system's resources, then, there is no easy
equivalence between a decrease in traffic case filings and
an increase in civil case filings or other criminal case
filings.
Legislative Highlights
Expansion of Public Defender System
The 1979 General Assembly in its second ("short")
1980 session voted to extend the State's public defender
system — now operative in five districts — into the
Third Judicial District effective January 1, 1981. Like
four of the other five public defenders, the new public
THE 1979-80 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
defender will be appointed by the Governor from a list
of nominees drawn up by members of the district bar,
and he or she will serve a four-year term.
Presumptive Sentencing Law
The "Fair Sentencing Act" of the 1979 General As-sembly
(passed in the first, 1979, session) was amended
in the second, 1980, session. In addition to some clarify-ing
amendments relating to the effect on an offender's
sentence of previous felony convictions, the effective
date of the Act was changed from July 1, 1980 to March
1, 1981.
Speedy Trial Law
Present North Carolina law provides that trial of a
criminal case must begin within 120 days of the filing of
the case, with certain periods of excusable or justifiable
delay excluded by the statute. The 120-day limit was to
have been reduced to 90 days as of October 1, 1980 un-der
the law as originally enacted by the 1977 General
Assembly. In the 1980 session, the imposition of the 90-
day limit was changed to an effective date of October 1,
1981; until that date, the present 120-day limit will
remain in effect.
Misdemeanor Appeals
A defendant convicted of a misdemeanor in North
Carolina's district courts (where no trial by jury is
available in criminal matters) has the right to appeal the
judgment to the superior court for trial de novo.
Previously existing law specifies that the superior court
obtains the same jurisdiction over the appealing defen-dant
that the district court had. Amendment to these
statutes in the 1980 legislative session provides that
when the conviction in district court resulted from a plea
arrangement between the defendant and the State, one
effect of which was the dismissal, reduction or modifica-tion
of the original misdemeanor charges, the superior
court has jurisdiction "to try those charges in the form
and to the extent that they subsisted in the district court
immediately prior to entry of the defendant and the
State of the Plea arrangement."
Court Studies
The General Assembly established in its 1980 session
a Juvenile Law Study Commission to make continuing
studies of statutory and case law relating to juveniles, of
services available to juveniles and their families, and of
any other matter the Commission considers "of impor-tance
to state consideration of juveniles." There are to
be fifteen members of the Commission, eleven to be ap-pointed
by the Governor and two each to be appointed
by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives. Of the eleven gubernatorial
appointees, two must be district court judges and three
must be court counselors. (Court counselors are Judicial
Department employees who provide intake/screening
functions and probation and parole supervision for the
juveniles within the jurisdiction of the district courts.)
Reports from the Commission are to be submitted by
the first date of each full legislative session.
The 1980 legislative session directed the North Caro-lina
Courts Commission to consider the salaries now
paid to assistant district attorneys, to develop recom-mendations
for a salary schedule for these personnel,
and to report to the 1981 General Assembly on this top-ic
by March 1, 1981. The General Assembly also in-cluded
in Chapter 1221 of its Session Laws a statement
of its "understanding" that the Courts Commission is
authorized to "make continuing studies of the structure,
organization, jurisdiction, procedures and personnel, in-cluding
the office of the public defender, of the Judicial
Department . . ." The listed study-topics, with the ex-ception
of the explicit reference to public defenders,
were included in the statutes which re-established the
Courts Commission in 1979 (G.S. 7A-506, et seq.).
The General Assembly in 1980 also directed the Ad-ministrative
Office of the Courts to study the implemen-tation
of the statute (G.S. 7A-289.32) which permits ter-mination
of parental rights if a parent is mentally re-tarded
or mentally ill and cannot provide care for his or
her child. The report is due to the 1981 General
Assembly by May 1, 1981, with a supplemental report
due by May 1, 1982.
Appropriations
Modifications of the two-year budget for 1979-81
provided additional appropriations for:
- increased costs for representation of indigents;
- additional magistrate positions authorized in
Mecklenburg and Stokes Counties;
- additional assistant district attorney positions
authorized in Districts 7, 13 and 16;
- additional secretarial positions in the district at-torneys'
offices in Districts 3 and 7;
- additional deputy clerk of court positions in 17
different counties;
- reimbursement for superior court judges' travel
costs (previously covered by the judges' annual
subsistence allowance); and
- a 10% pay increase for Judicial Department per-sonnel
— comparable to the pay increase provided
other State employees.
THE 1979-80 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
Remaining Parts of Annual Report
More detailed information on the work of the Judicial
Department in the 1979-80 fiscal year is included in the
remaining three parts of this Report. Part II contains a
brief history of the court system and a description of the
present system, with each of the several components
described and summary information provided on opera-tions
in 1979-80.
Information on the Judicial Department's financial
and personnel resources is set out in Part III of this
Annual Report. Included is: information on appropria-tions
from the General Fund for operating expenses in
1979-80, compared with appropriations in previous
years and appropriations trends for the operating ex-penses
of all State government departments and agen-cies;
information on expenditures in the several budget
categories, with comparative information on previous
years' expeditures; information on Judicial Department
revenues from its several sources, and the distribution of
those revenues; a section on the costs of the indigent
representation program, including a county-by-county
table on numbers of cases and payments for assigned
private counsel for indigents; and a table showing the
Judicial Department personnel categories and salary
ranges for the 1979-80 fiscal year.
The great volume of data on the flow of cases through
the two trial court divisions — with data broken down
into several cases categories and presented for each of
the 100 counties — is presented in Part IV.
PART II
COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION
AND OPERATIONS
• Historical Development of Court System
• Present Court System
• Organization and Operations in 1979-80
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 repeat-ed
sequence of critical examination, proposals for re-form,
and finally the enactment of some reform
measures.
Colonial Period
Around 1700 the royal governor established a Gener-al
(or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute
developed over the appointment of associate justices.
The Assembly conceded to the King the right to name
the chief justice but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself
the power to appoint the associate justices. Other con-troversies
developed concerning the creation and juris-diction
of the courts and the tenure of judges. As for
the latter, the Assembly's position was that judge ap-pointments
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 legisla-ture,"
which was more familiar with local conditions
and needs (Lefler and Newsome, 142). Nevertheless,
North Carolina alternated between periods under legis-latively
enacted reforms (like good behavior tenure and
the Court Bill of 1746, which contained the seeds of the
post-Revolutionary court system) and periods of stale-mate
and anarchy after such enactments were nullified
by royal authority. A more elaborate system was
framed by legislation in 1767 to last five years. It was
not renewed because of persisting disagreement be-tween
local and royal partisans. As a result, North
Carolina was without higher courts until after Indepen-dence
(Battle, 847).
At the lower court level during the colonial period,
judicial and county government administrative func-tions
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 Ses-sions
— 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 Assembly, and they were paid out of fees
charged litigants. On the lowest level of the judicial sys-tem,
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 Gener-al
Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of
Law and Equity. A court law enacted a year later au-thorized
three superior court judges and created judi-cial
districts. Sessions were supposed to be held in the
court towns of each district twice a year, under a sys-tem
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 Revolu-tion,
the terms Supreme Court and Superior Court
were also interchangeable during the period immediate-ly
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, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, con-flicting
judge opinions, and insufficient number of
judges, and lack of means for appeal were all cited as
problems, although the greatest weakness was consid-ered
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 or Con-ference
to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the
districts. This court was continued and made perma-nent
by subsequent laws. The justices were required to
put their opinions in writing to be delivered orally in
court. The Court of Conference was changed in name
to the Supreme Court in 1805 and authorized to hear
appeals in 1810. Because of the influence of the English
legal system, however, there was still no conception of
an alternative to judges sitting together to hear appeals
from cases which they had themselves heard in the dis-tricts
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 constitut-ing
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 govern-ment
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 sat-isfy
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 (in-
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
eluding the designation of the chief justice) and super-ior
court judges (raised in number to 12) was taken
from the legislature and given to the voters, although
vacancies were to be filled by the governor until the
next election. The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the County Court of which three justices of the
peace constituted a quorum — was eliminated. Its judi-cial
responsibilities were divided between the Superior
Courts and the individual justices of the peace, who
were retained as separate judicial officers with limited
jurisdiction.
Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868
Constitution 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 struc-ture
it had established continued without systematic
modification through more than half of the 20th cen-tury.
(A further constitutional amendment approved by
the voters in November, 1888, 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
systematic court reforms were proposed in the 1950's.
This accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the
court system was most evident at the lower, local court
level, where hundreds of courts specially created by
statute operated with widely dissimilar structure and
jurisdiction.
By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent
major reforms was begun, the court system in North
Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme
Court, with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior
court, with general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statu-tory
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 divid-ed
into 30 judicial districts and 24 solicitorial districts.
The 40 superior court judges (who rotated among the
counties) and the district solicitors were paid by the
State. The clerk of superior court, who was judge of
probate and often also a juvenile judge, was a county
official. There were specialized branches of superior
court in some counties for matters like domestic rela-tions
and juvenile offenses.
The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher
of these local court levels were more than 180 recorder-type
courts. Among these were the county recorder's
courts, municipal recorder's courts and township re-corder's
courts; the general county courts, county crim-inal
courts and special county courts; the domestic
relations courts and the juvenile courts. Some of these
had been established individually by special legislative
acts more than a half-century earlier. Others had been
created by general law across the State since 1919.
About half were county courts and half were city or
township courts. Jurisdiction included misdemeanors
(mostly traffic offenses), preliminary hearings and
sometimes civil matters. The judges, who were usually
part-time, were variously elected or appointed locally.
At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and
some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had simi-lar
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 exact-ed,
and they provided their own facilities.
Court Reorganization
The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revi-sion
of the court system received the attention and sup-port
of Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who
encouraged the leadership of the North Carolina Bar
Association to pursue the matter. A Court Study Com-mittee
was established as an agency of the North Caro-lina
Bar Association, and that Committee issued its
report, calling for reorganization, at the end of 1958. A
legislative Constitutional Commission, which worked
with the Court Study Committee, finished its report
early the next year. Both groups called for the structur-ing
of an all-inclusive court system which would be
directly state-operated, uniform in its organization
throughout the State and centralized in its administra-tion.
The plan was for a simplified, streamlined and
unified structure. A particularly important part of the
proposal was the elimination of the local statutory
courts and their replacement by a single District Court;
the office of justice of the peace was to be abolished,
and the newly fashioned position of magistrate would
function within the District Court as a subordinate ju-dicial
office.
Constitutional amendments were introduced in the
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were
reintroduced and approved at the 1961 session. The
Constitutional amendments were approved by popular
vote in 1962, and three years later the General Assem-bly
enacted statutes to put the system into effect by
stages. By the end of 1970 all of the counties and their
courts had been incorporated into the new system,
whose unitary nature was symbolized by the name,
General Court of Justice. The designation of the entire
20th Century judicial system as a single, statewide
"court," with components for various types and levels
of caseload, was adapted from North Carolina's earlier
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
General Court, whose full venue extended to all of the
17th Century counties.
After Reorganization
Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has contin-ued.
In 1965, the Constitution was amended to provide
for the creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It
was amended again in 1972 to allow for the Supreme
Court to censure or remove judges upon the recom-mendation
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 three-fifths required to sub-mit
constitutional amendments to a vote of the people.
It seems likely that this significant issue will be before
the General Assembly 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 ^-
Standards Commission!
Original Jurisdiction
All felony cases; civil
cases in excess of $5,000
,
,
Decisions of
most administrative
agencies
COURT OF
APPEALS
12 Judges
SUPERIOR COURTS
66 Judges
Original Jurisdiction
Probate and estates,
special proceedings
(condemnations, adoptions,
partitions, foreclosures,
etc.)
civil cases
criminal cases
(lor trial de novo)
DISTRICT
COURTS
136 Judges
Clerks of Superior
Court
(100)
Magistrates
(598)
s^-.
i
Decisions of Utilities
'c/. Commission, Industrial
Commission, State Bar,
. Property Tax Commi
Commissioner of Inssturance i
Original Jurisdiction
Misdemeanor cases not assigned
to magistrates; probable cause
hearings; civil cases $5,000
or less; juvenile proceedings;
domestic relations;
involuntary commitments
Original Jurisdiction
Accept certain misdemeanor
guilty pleas; worthless check
misdemeanors $500 or less;
small claims $800 or less
(1) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving con-stitutional
questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may re-view
Court of Appeals decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance.
(2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals.
(3) As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in criminal cases in which the defendant 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 in cases where delay would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full.
10
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab-lishes
the General Court of Justice which "shall consti-tute
a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdic-tion,
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 su-perior
courts which hold sessions in the county seats of
the 100 counties of the State. The counties are grouped
into judicial districts (33 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 dis-trict
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 purposes 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 government, nor shall it establish or authorize any
courts other than as permitted by this Article." The
terms, "General Court of Justice" and "Judicial De-partment"
are almost, but not quue, synonymous. It
may be said that the Judicial Department encompasses
all of the levels of court designated as the General
Court of Justice plus all administrative and ancillary
services within the Judicial Department.
The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal be-tween
the several levels of court in North Carolina's
system of courts are illustrated in the chart on the op-posite
page.
Criminal Cases
Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original ju-risdiction
of the district courts. Some misdemeanor of-fenses
are tried by magistrates, who are also empow-ered
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 dis-trict
court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by
jury available at the district court level; appeal from the
district courts' judgments in criminal cases is to the su-perior
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 su-perior
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,
condemnations under the authority of eminent domain,
and foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed
to the superior court.
The district courts have original jurisdiction in juve-nile
proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for
involuntary commitment to a mental hospital, and gen-eral
civil cases where the amount in litigation is $5,000
or less. If the amount in litigation is $800* or less and
the plantiff 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 avail-able
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 of litigation is
more than $5,000. Appeals from decisions of most ad-ministrative
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 supplement those prescribed by statute. The
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court designates one of
the judges of the Court of Appeals to be its Chief
Judge, who in turn is responsible for scheduling the ses-sions
of the Court of Appeals.
* Increased from $500 effective October 1 , 1979 (G.S. 7A-2 10).
11
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
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 su-perior
court in the 100 counties is set by the Supreme
Court; assignment of the State's rotating superior court
judges is the responsibility of the Chief Justice. Finally,
the Chief Justice designates a chief district court judge
for each of the State's 33 judicial districts from among
the elected district court judges of the respective dis-tricts.
These judges have special responsibilities for the
scheduling of the district courts and magistrates' courts
within their respective districts, as well as general local-level
administrative responsibilities.
The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsi-ble
for direction of the non-judicial, administrative and
business affairs of the Judicial Department. Included
among its functions are fiscal management, personnel
direction, information and statistical services, supervi-sion
of record keeping in the trial court clerks' offices,
liaison with the legislative and executive departments of
government, court facility evaluation, purchase and
contract, education and training, coordination of the
program for provision of legal counsel to indigent per-sons,
juvenile probation and after-care, trial court ad-ministrator
services, planning, and general administra-tive
services.
The clerk of superior court in each county acts as
clerk for both the superior and district courts. Through
1979-80, the clerk also served as chairman of the
county's calendar committee, which set the civil case
calendars. Effective July 1, 1980, these committees have
been eliminated; in the future, day-to-day calendaring
of civil cases will be done by the clerk of superior court
or by a "trial court administrator" in some districts,
under the direct supervision of the senior resident supe-rior
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.
12
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts
CHIEF JUSTICE
and
SUPREME COURT
I
2
i
(33) Senior Resident
Judges; (100) Clerks
of Superior Court
SUPERIOR
COURTS
Administrative
Office of
the Courts
±
(33) District
Attorneys
X (33) Chief District
Court Judges
DISTRICT
COURTS
1 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.
2 The Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at
the pleasure of the Chief Justice.
3 The 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 33 judicial districts from the
judges elected in the respective districts.
4 The 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.
5 The 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 re-spective
courts.
6 In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping
functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the su-pervision
of the chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees
submitted by the clerk of superior court.
13
THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA1
ChiefJustice
JOSEPH BRANCH
Associate Justices
J. FRANK HUSKINS
J. WILLIAM COPELAND
JAMES G.EXUM, JR.
DAVID M.BRITT
WALTER E. BROCK
J. PHIL CARLTON
Retired ChiefJustices
WILLIAM H. BOBBITT
SUSIE SHARP
Retired Justices
J. WILLPLESS,JR.
CARLISLE W.HIGGINS 2
I. BEVERLY LAKE
DANK. MOORE
Clerk
John R. Morgan
Librarian
Frances H. Hall
'As of 30 June 1980.
2 Deceased 9 October 980.
14
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The Supreme Court
At the apex of the General Court of Justice is the
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to
consider and decide questions of law presented in civil
and criminal cases appealed from the lower courts. The
Chief Justice and six associate justices are elected to
eight-year terms by popular vote. There are two terms
of the Supreme Court each year: a Spring Term com-mencing
on the first Tuesday in February and a Fall
Term commencing on the first Tuesday in September.
The Court sits only en banc.
Jurisdiction
The only original jurisdiction exercised by the Su-preme
Court is over the censure and removal of judges
upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judi-cial
Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jur-isdiction
includes: — cases on appeal by right from the Court of Ap-peals
(Utilities Commission general rate-setting
cases, cases involving substantial constitutional
questions, and cases in which there has been dis-sent
in the Court of Appeals); — criminal cases on appeal by right from the supe-rior
courts (cases in which the defendant has been
sentenced to death or life imprisonment); — civil cases on appeal by right from the superior
courts (cases involving the involuntary annexa-tion
of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or
more population); and — cases in which review has been granted in the Su-preme
Court's discretion.
Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly
from the trial courts may be granted when delay would
likely cause substantial harm or when the workload of
the Appellate Division is such that the expeditious ad-ministration
of justice requires it. 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 for the Appellate Divi-sion
and supplementary rules of practice and procedure
for the trial court divisions consistent with the rules
prescribed by the General Assembly. The schedule of
superior court sessions in the 100 counties is approved,
yearly, by the Supreme Court. The members of the
North Carolina Judicial Planning Committee are ap-pointed
by, and serve at the pleasure of, the Supreme
Court, as are the Clerk of the Supreme Court, the Li-brarian
of the Supreme Court, and the Appellate Divi-sion
Reporter.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and
an Assistant Director, who serve at his pleasure. He
also designates a Chief Judge from among the judges of
the Court of Appeals and a Chief District Court Judge
from among the judges in each of the State's 33 judicial
districts. He assigns superior court judges, who regular-ly
rotate from district to district, to the scheduled ses-sions
of superior court in the 100 counties, and is also
empowered to transfer district court judges to other
districts for temporary or specialized duty. The Chief
Justice (or another member of the Supreme Court des-ignated
by him) is the chairman of the Judicial Council,
and two superior court judges, one district court judge
and two district attorneys are appointed to two-year
terms on the Council by the Chief Justice. He also ap-points
three of the seven members of the Judicial
Standards Commission — a judge of the Court of Ap-peals
who serves as the Commission's chairman, one
superior court judge and one district court judge.
Operations of the Court, 1979-80
Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the
1979-80 fiscal year amounted to $1,185,967, an increase
of one percent over total 1978-79 expenditures of
$1,173,674. Expenditures for the Supreme Court during
1979-80 constituted 1.7% of all General Fund expendi-tures
for the operation of the entire Judicial Depart-ment
during the fiscal year.
A total of 262 appealed cases were before the Su-preme
Court during the Fall 1979 and Spring 1980
terms. A total of 193 cases were decided (with pub-lished
opinions). The remainder were either withdrawn
by the appellates, dismissed, or were still pending in the
Court at the end of the Spring 1980 term. A detailed
breakdown of this caseload is included in the tables on
the following page.
15
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
Supreme Court Caseload Inventory*
September 4, 1979 — September 2, 1980
Cases undecided and brought forward from Spring 1979 term
Cases unheard and brought forward from Spring 1979 term
Cases filed during Fall 1979 term
Cases filed during Spring 1980 term
Caseload for 1979-80 year
Cases withdrawn or dismissed
Cases decided during Fall 1979 term
Cases decided during Spring 1980 term
Cases carried forward to Fall 1980 term
6
13
123
120
262
19
84
109
24
* Beginning and end pending figures do not balance when cases filed and disposed of during the reporting period are taken into account.
During the past several terms the Court underwent a period of experimentation and evaluation in its method of statistical reporting, including
changes in the classification of cases. These classification changes, coupled with summary (one-time, cumulative) counting, appear to have in-troduced
some double counting into the caseload inventory figures. Limited resources prevented a total case-by-case examination to isolate the
error factor. On the other hand, the new classification and counting structure is designed to improve the long-term accuracy and comprehen-siveness
of reported statistics, and future reporting periods should not encounter difficulty in reconciling beginning and end pending caseload
figures.
Cases Filed In The Supreme Court
September 4, 1979 — September 2, 1980
CIVIL CASES
Appeals as of right
Dissent in the Court of Appeals
Annexation by municipality of 5,000 or more
population
Requests to appeal granted
Substantial constitutional question
Petition for discretionary review of decision of
Court of Appeals, allowed
Petition for discretionary review prior to
determination by Court of Appeals, allowed
Petition for writ of certiorari, allowed
Certified to U.S. Supreme Court
CRIMINAL CASES
Appeals as of right
Defendant sentenced to life imprisonment
Defendant sentenced to death
Dissent in the Court of Appeals
Requests to appeal granted
Substantial constitutional question
Petition for discretionary review of decision of
Court of Appeals, allowed
Petition for discretionary review prior to
determination by Court of Appeals, allowed
Petition for writ of certiorari, allowed
Defendant sentenced to less than life imprisonment
(transferred to Court of Appeals)
38
37
96
12
7
Manner Of Disposition Of Cases
In The Supreme Court
September 4, 1979 — September 2, 1980
Opinions rendered, civil 87
Opinions rendered, criminal 106
Total opinions rendered 193
Affirmed
Reversed
Reversed and remanded
Remanded
Granted/denied
Dismissed/ withdrawn/settled
106
4^
22
15
0/1
19
TOTAL 243
N
U
M
B
E
R
O
F
C
A
S
E
S
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
Appeals Docketed and Opinions Rendered in the Supreme Court
400
300 _
200
100 _
H Appeals Docketed
Opinions Rendered
1977-78 1978-79 1979-80
The number of opinions written by the Supreme Court
during the 1979-80 year shows a substantial increase over
the number written in previous years. Of the 193 opi-nions
written during the last year, 54.9% of these affir-med
the decision of a lower court; 25.4% were reversals.
17
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court's workload also includes petitions quests to appeal. The total of 6 1 7 petitions docketed is an
requesting discretionary review or certiorari and peti- increase of 24% over the total of 499 such petitions in the
tions for issuance of other remedial writs. A total of 617 previous two terms (Fall 1978 and Spring 1979) and of
such petitions were before the Court in the Fall 1979 and 81% over the Fall 1977 and Spring 1978 total of 341
Spring 1980 terms; the vast majority of these were re- petitions.
Petitions Filed In The Supreme Court
September 4, 1979 — September 2, 1980
Requests to Appeal
CIVIL CASES
Petitions for discretionary review of decision of Court of Appeals 282
Petitions for discretionary review prior to decision of Court of Appeals 1
3
Petitions for writ of certiorari 20
Applications for further review 49
Civil Case Total 364
CRIMINAL CASES
Petitions for discretionary review of Court of Appeals 112
Petitions for discretionary review prior to decision of Court of Appeals 2
Petitions for writ of certiorari 118
Petitions for writ of habeas corpus 8
Criminal Case Total 240
Total Requests to Appeal 604
Petitions for Other Writs 13
TOTAL 617
Other motions considered 1 67
IX
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
N
U
M
B
E
R
O
F
C
A
S
E
S
Petitions Docketed and Allowed
In the Supreme Court
800
600
400 .
200
H Petitions Docketed
Petitions Allowed
1977-78 1978-79 1979-80
The number of petitions graphed here includes request to
appeal cases as well as extraordinary writs. The 72 peti-tions
allowed during the 1979-80 year included 60 for dis-cretionary
review of a decision of the Court of Appeals,
eight for discretionary review prior to a decision of the
Court of Appeals, and four for certiorari.
19
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
ChiefJudge
NAOMI E. MORRIS
Judges
FRANK M.PARKER 1
R.A.HEDRICK
EARL W.VAUGHN
ROBERT M.MARTIN
EDWARD B.CLARK
GERALD ARNOLD
JOHN WEBB
RICHARD C.ERWIN
HARRY C.MARTIN
HUGH A. WELLS
CECIL J. HILL
Retired Judge
HUGH B. CAMPBELL
Clerk
FRANCIS E. DAIL
*Asof30June 1980.
'Retired 31 August 1980. Judge Willis P. Whichard was appointed to the Court effective September 2, 1980.
20
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
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 regu-lar
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 Justice 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 num-ber
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.
The Chief Judge (or another member of the Court of
Appeals designated by the Chief Judge) is an ex officio
member of the Judicial Council. One member of the
Court of Appeals, designated by the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, serves as chairman of the Judicial
Standards Commission.
Jurisdiction
The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals
consists of cases appealed from the trial courts. The
Court also hears appeals directly from any final order
or decision of the North Carolina Utilities Commis-sion,
the Industrial Commission, and from certain final
orders or decisions of the North Carolina State Bar
and the Commissioner of Insurance. Effective Septem-ber
1, 1979, appeals from certain final orders or deci-sions
of the Property Tax Commission go directly to
the Court of Appeals. (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 of-fice
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 Commission's chairman). Such seven-member pan-el
would have sole jurisdiction to act upon the Com-mission's
recommendation.
Expenses of the Court, 1979-80
Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during
the 1979-80 fiscal year totalled $1,641,918, an increase
of 10.5% over 1978-79 expenditures of $1,485,877. Ex-penditures
for the Court of Appeals during 1979-80
amounted to 2.3% of all General Fund expenditures for
operation of the entire Judicial Department during the
fiscal year. This percentage share of the total is virtual-ly
identical to the Court of Appeals' percentage share
of the Judicial Department total in the 1978-79 fiscal
year.
Case Data, Calendar Year 1979
A total of 1,204 appealed cases were before the Court
of Appeals during calendar year 1979. A total of 1,190
cases were disposed during the same period. A detailed
breakdown of this caseload is included in the tables on
the following pages.
The Court of Appeals' workload for 1979 also in-cluded
532 petitions of all types; of these, requests for
extraordinary remedies (prerogative writs) make up the
vast majority.
The recent trend in filings and dispositions by the
Court of Appeals is illustrated in the following graph. In
reviewing the data, it should be noted that the number
of judges on the Court was raised from nine to twelve by
the 1977 General Assembly; the three judges appointed
to these new positions took office in December of 1977
and January of 1978.
21
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
Filings and Dispositions in the Court
of Appeals 1977-1979
3000
2500 .
2000 -
1500 _
1000
500 .
1977 1978 1979
Filings and dispositions in the Court of Appeals, as
graphed here, include appeal cases and petitions filed
and disposed. The noticeable increase in filings and dis-positons
in 1979 is explained almost entirely by an in-crease
in the number of petitions filed and disposed.
This increase does not necessarily indicate that more re-quests
to appeal are entering the court, however, since
the term "petitions" in this instance includes all peti-tions
regardless of type.
22
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
Filings And Dispositions In The Court Of Appeals
January 1 — December 31, 1979
Filings Dispositions
Cases on appeal
Civil cases appealed from District Courts
Civil cases appealed from Superior Courts
Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies
Criminal cases appealed from Superior Courts
TOTAL
Petitions
Allowed
Remanded
Denied
Other
TOTAL
TOTAL CASES ON APPEAL AND PETITIONS
Motions
Allowed
Remanded
Denied
TOTAL
223
439
47
495
1,204 1,190
54
6
400
1
532
461
1,736 1,651
818
3
207
1,183 1,028
23
INVENTORY OF CASES APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
January 1 — December 31, 1979
Cases Filed
District
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 A/B*
16
17
18
19 A/B*
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 A/B*
28
29
30
Total
Appeals from
District Courts
5
2
5
6
7
2
3
12
10
II
8
10
5
6
6
3
7
14
7
4
17
2
5
I
6
20
7
12
5
6
223
Appeals from Superior Courts
Civil Criminal
19
10
9
12
II
16
4
64
II
7
4
15
18
4
6
20
16
IX
22
II
20
6
16
38
12
14
13
7
439
10
13
18
22
18
7
17
25
9
24
7
46
3
10
21
12
17
31
15
19
26
7
1 I
9
15
42
18
9
12
2
495
Other Total Cases
Appeals Filed Disposed of
23 31
23 13
42 39
38 36
34 31
21 22
31 31
53 43
23 25
47 146 139
26 21
63 46
12 19
31 45
45 38
19 24
30 25
65 74
38 39
41 41
65 63
20 27
36 30
16 14
37 48
109 117
37 35
35 34
30 22
15 18
47 1,204 1,190
*Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown. Separate
figures for these districts were not available.
24
INVENTORY OF PETITIONS AND MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS
January 1 —- December 31, 1979
All Petitions
Petitions Motions Other and Motions
District Filed Allowed Denied Remanded Filed Allowed Denied Remanded Filed Disposed of
1 15 3 9 1 19 13 3 1 34 30
2 4 4 27 19 4 31 27
3 17 12 51 29 11 68 52
4 20 18 31 26 4 51 4X
5 26 2 18 1 39 24 8 65 53
6 13 12 1 32 25 7 45 45
7 17 16 35 27 4 52 47
8 18 2 15 9 24 15 5 42 38
9 12 2 8 31 23 5 43 38
10 63 11 40 148 108 22 211 181
II 4 2 2 29 15 8 33 27
12 29 3 24 (J 41 26 10 I 70 64
13 8 6 10 9 1 18 16
14 22 2 18 1 57 37 13 79 71
15 A/B* 9 2 5 4S 32 II 57 50
16 20 2 17 21 17 2 1 41 39
17 13 2 10 26 22 4 39 38
18 30 6 20 1 76 51 II 106 89
19 A/B* 17 3 10 1 22 14 5 39 33
20 27 2 24 23 14 6 50 46
21 18 2 14 57 40 12 75 68
22 14 1 11 17 13 2 31 27
23 5 5 32 27 2 37 34
24 9 1 7 22 15 6 31 29
25 14 13 44 30 9 58 52
26 50 1 37 107 67 16 1 157 122
27 A/B* 11 1 6 21 18 2 32 27
28 8 1 5 39 23 8 47 37
29 15 2 11 35 25 3 50 41
30 4 1 3 19 13 3 23 20
Totals 532 54 400 1,183 818 207 1,715 1,489
*Combined totals for Districts 15A and I5B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown. Separate
figures for these districts were not available.
25
H
><
H
O
u
HZu
/:
Ead
r-
B
-a
B
i/i
5
H
•3
3
53
.5
"ou
8_
S
« cs j>>
C
O X3 15
3 m 5 </)
> 3
-o u U C
IH
i- 4-» r3 y^
3 aa
E« X) O •3 U
i
—
Oil a
-o
o
c ^^ 3 o
Bj u
l— i—
U5 3
o
'3
i—
-5 -J 4-1
^ E U c
-o o u- J=
l— <— t«
"i
as
c
u
r3
Q
-5
3 O u
-o
« Cfl m 3 m 3J 1) O Oil lx 'J
o X)
3 c
_g
'
'
i _C
u- 1—
"O 3 _C 3
OJ O o O
-o O 1c u
> & -o
-o c c o
3J -C
us Q.
3 c o
i— Cfl TD
ed > o
00 3 c TD Oil U Oil
f- u aj m
H ftj
-C m
71
26
JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT*
(As of June 30, 1980)
FIRST DIVISION
District
1
2
3
J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City
Elbert S. Peel, Jr., Williamston
Robert D. Rouse, Jr., Farmville
David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville
Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville
James R. Strickland, Jacksonville
Bradford Tillery, Wilmington
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington
Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids
George M. Fountain, Tarboro
Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro
8 R. Michael Bruce, Mount Olive
James D. Llewellyn, Kinston
SECOND DIVISION
9 Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg
10 James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh
Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh
A. Pilston Goodwin, Jr., Raleigh
Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh
1
1
Harry E. Canaday, Benson
12 E. Maurice Braswell, Fayetteville
Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville
D.B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville
13 Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown
14 Thomas H. Lee, Durham
Anthony M. Brannon, Bahama
John C. Martin, Durham
15A D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington
15B F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill
16 Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton
THIRD DIVISION
District
17 James M. Long, Yanceyville
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 John D. McConnell, Southern Pines
F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro
21 Harvey A. Lupton, Winston-Salem
William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem
22 Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville
Peter W. Hairston, Advance
23 Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilksboro
FOURTH DIVISION
24 Ronald W. Howell, Marshall
25 Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory
(Vacant) 1
26 Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte
Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte
Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte
William T. Grist, Charlotte
Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte
27A Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia
27B John R. Friday, Lincolnton
28 Robert D. Lewis, Asheville
C. Walter Allen, Asheville
29 (Vacant)3
30 Lacy H. Thornburg, Webster
* In districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed first.
1 Judge Sam J. Ervin, III, of Morganton, resigned this seat effective May 30, 1980; Claude S. Sitton, of Morganton, was appointed to suceed
him effective September 3, 1980.
2 Judge J. W. Jackson, of Hendersonville, retired on June 1, 1980; Hollis M. Owens, Jr., of Rutherfordton, was appointed to succeed him effec-tive
July 31, 1980.
27
SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT
Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone
Clarence P. Cornelius, Mooresville Arthur L. Lane, Fayetteville
Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem Harry L. Riddle, Jr., Morganton
John R. Jolly, Rocky Mount Donald L. Smith, Raleigh
EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT
Albert W. Cowper, Kinston
Hamilton H. Hobgood, Louisburg
28
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The Superior Courts
North Carolina's superior courts are principally
original-jurisdiction trial courts which also perform
some appellate functions. In 1979-80 there were 58 "resi-dent"
superior court judges elected to office in the 33
judicial districts for eight-year terms by Statewide
ballot, and eight "special" superior court judges ap-pointed
to office by the Governor for four-year terms.
Jurisdiction
The superior court has original jurisdiction in all
felony cases and in those misdemeanor cases which
originate by grand jury indictment. (Most mis-demeanors
are tried first in the district court, from
which they 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 trial of civil cases where the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000, and it has jurisdiction over
appeals from all administrative agencies except the
Utilities Commission, Industrial Commission, certain
rulings of the Commissioner of Insurance, the Board of
Bar Examiners of the N.C. State Bar, and the Property
Tax Commission. Appeals from these agencies lie di-rectly
to the 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 matter and certain special proceedings heard
first by the clerk of superior court as ex officio judge of
probate. Rulings of the clerk are within the appellate
jurisdiction of the superior court.
Administration
The 100 counties of North Carolina are grouped into
33 judicial districts at the present time. Each district has
at least one resident superior court judge who has cer-tain
administrative responsibilities for his home district,
such as providing for civil case-calendaring procedures.
(Criminal case calendars are prepared by the district at-torneys.)
In districts with more than one resident supe-rior
court judge, the judge senior in service on the supe-rior
court bench exercises these supervisory powers.
The 33 judicial districts are grouped into four divi-sions
for the rotation of superior court judges, as
shown on the map on page 26. Within his division, a
resident superior court judge is required to rotate
through the judicial districts, holding court for at least
six months in each, then moving on to his next assign-ment.
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 Jus-tice
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.
Resources
A total of $14,042, 696 was expended for operation of
the superior courts during the 1979-80 fiscal year, an in-crease
of 13.5% over 1978-79 expenditures of $12,377,-
669. This total includes expenditures for the State's dis-trict
attorneys' offices as well as the salaries and
operating expenses of the 66 superior courts judges,
court reporters in the superior courts, and staff support.
The 1979-80 total amounted to 19.8% of the General
Fund expenditures for operating expenses of the entire
Judicial Department. This percentage share of the total
is virtually identical to the superior courts' percentage
share of the Judicial Department total in the previous
year.
1979-80 Caseload
Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of
74,899 cases were filed in the superior courts from July
1, 1979 through June 30, 1980. Comparisons of this
year's total with those in previous Annual Reports indi-cate
that superior court case filings have been increasing
in recent years. The 1979-80 total is 9.1% higher than the
total of 68,625 cases filed during 1978-79.
Superior court case dispositions increased also, al-though
the number of cases disposed of in 1979-80 — a
total of 72,983 civil and criminal cases — did not equal
the number filed. As a result there was an increase in the
number of cases pending, from 31,356 as of the first of
the fiscal year to 33,272 as of the last of the year. This
represents an increase of 6.1%.
Additional, and more detailed, information on the
flow of cases through the superior courts is included in
Part IV of this report.
29
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The Superior Courts
Educational Activity
Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Department
sponsored the following educational activities for
superior court judges in 1979-80:
• three orientation sessions for new special superior
court judges, July 27-28, August 3-4, and Septem-ber
7-8, in Chapel Hill, attended by 7 new judges;
• the Fall Continuing Education Conference, Sep-tember
28-29, 1979 in Wilmington, attended by 50
judges;
• the Spring Seminar, February 21-23, 1980 in
Pinehurst, attended by 48 judges; and
• the annual meeting of the Conference of Superior
Court Judges, June 22-25 in Wrightsville Beach, at-tended
by 58 judges.
Grant Funds also were used to sponsor court reporter
attendance at a North Carolina Shorthand Reporters
Association seminar that was held in Fayetteville on
February 16, 1980. A total of 30 superior court reporters
attended this training session.
The Conference of Superior Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1980)
John D. McConnell, Southern Pines, President
J.W. Jackson, Hendersonville, President-Elect
Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer, Vice President
F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill, Secretary-Treasurer
Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro, and
D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington,
Additional Executive Committee Members
30
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1980)
District
1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City
John R. Parker, Elizabeth City
2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington
Charles H. Manning, Williamston
3 Charles H. Whedbee, Greenville
E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville
Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City
Norris C. Reed, Jr., New Bern
James E. Regan, Oriental
Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton
4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill
E. Alex Erwin, III, Jacksonville
Walter P. Henderson, Trenton
James N. Martin, Kenansville
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville
5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington
Carter T. Lambeth, Wilminton
Charles H. Rice, III, Wilmington
John M. Walker, 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
Tom H. Matthews, Rocky Mount
8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston
Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro
Joseph E. Setzer, 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
Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh
George R. Greene, Raleigh
John Hill Parker, Raleigh
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh
District
11
12
Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield
William Christian, Sanford
K. Edward Greene, Dunn
W. Pope Lyon, Smithfield
Derb S. Carter, Fayetteville
Sol. G. Cherry, Fayetteville
Joseph E. Dupree, Raeford
Charles Lee Guy, Fayetteville
Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville
Frank T. Grady, Elizabethtown
J. Wilton Hunt, Sr., Whiteville
Roy D. Trest, Shallotte
William E. Wood, Whiteville
J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham
Karen B. Galloway, Durham
David Q. LaBarre, Durham
William G. Pearson, II, Durham
15A J.B. Allen, Jr., Burlington
Thomas D. Cooper, Jr., Burlington
W.S. Harris, Jr., Graham
15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill
Donald L. Paschal, Siler City
13
14
16
17
John S. Gardner, Lumberton
B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg
Charles G. McLean, Lumberton
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton
Leonard H. vanNoppen, Danbury
Foy Clark, Mount Airy
Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy
Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville
Robert L. Cecil, Hig
Elreta M. Alexander
Frank A. Campbell,
John B. Hatfield, Jr.
James Samuel Pfaff,
Joseph A. Williams,
John F. Yeattes, Jr.,
(Vacant) 1
h Point
, Greensboro
Greensboro
, Greensboro
Greensboro
Greensboro
Greensboro
19A Robert L. Warren, Concord
L. Frank Faggart, Kannapolis
Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury
The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first.
Judge B. Gordon Gentry, of Greensboro, retired on April 30, 1980; Joseph R. John, of Greensboro, was appointed to succeed him effective
July 2, 1980.
31
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1980)
District
19B L.T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro
William H. Heafner, Asheboro
20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro
Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle
Kenneth W. Honneycutt, Monroe
Walter M. Lampley, Rockingham
21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem
William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem
James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem
Gary B. Tash, Winston-Salem
22 Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville
Robert W. Johnson, Statesville
Hubert E. Olive, Jr., Lexington
23 Ralph Davis, North Wilkesboro
John T. Kilby, Jefferson
Samuel T. Osborne, Wilkesboro
24 J. Ray Braswell, Newland
Robert H. Lacey, Newland
25 Livingston Vernon, Morganton
Edward J. Crotty, Hickory
Bill J. Martin, Hickory
L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory
Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton
* The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first.
District
26 Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte
Walter H. Bennett, Jr., Charlotte
Larry Thomas Black, Charlotte
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte
William G. Jones, Charlotte
James E. Lanning, Charlotte
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte
T. Michael Todd, Charlotte
27A Lewis Bulwinkle, Gastonia
Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia
J. Ralph Phillips, Gastonia
Donald E. Ramseur, Gastonia
27B A. Max Harris, Ellenboro
James T. Bowen, Lincolnton
George W. Hamrick, Shelby
28 James O. Israel, Jr., Candler
Earl J. Fowler, Jr. Arden
Peter L. Roda, Asheville
William Marion Styles, Black Mountain
29 Robert C. Cash, Brevard
Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville
Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville
Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton
30 Robert Leatherwood, III, Bryson City
J. Charles McDarris, Waynesville
John J Snow, Jr., Murphy
32
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
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
136 district court judges serving in 33 judicial districts
during 1979-80, elected to four-year terms by the voters
of their respective districts.
A total of 598 magistrate positions (some part-time)
were authorized in 1979-80. Magistrates are appointed
by the senior resident superior court judge from
nominations submitted by the clerk of superior court of
their county, and they are supervised by the chief district
court judge of their district.
Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the district court extends to vir-tually
all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in
most felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary
commitments and re-commitments to mental hospitals,
domestic relations cases, and to general civil cases where
the amount in controversy is $5,000 or less. Upon the
plaintiff's request, a civil case where the amount in con-troversy
is $800* or less may be denominated a "small
claims" case and assigned by the chief district court
judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magistrates are also
empowered to try worthless check criminal cases when
the value of the check does not exceed $400** and the
offender has fewer than four previous worthless check
convictions; magistrates may also accept waivers of ap-pearance
and pleas of guilty in certain traffic cases.
Magistrates conduct initial hearings to fix conditions of
release for arrested offenders, and 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 authori-ty
over the operation of the district courts and
magistrates in his district. Each chief judge is responsi-ble
for: scheduling sessions of district court and assign-ing
judges; supervising the calendaring of civil 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 dis-trict
courts, of the clerks of superior court of the district.
The 33 chief district court judges meet in conference
at least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual
conference adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses
and fines for their violation for use by magistrates and
clerks of court in accepting defendants' waivers of ap-pearance
and guilty pleas.
The Conference of Chief District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1980)
John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City, Chairman
James O. Israel, Jr., Candler, Vice Chairman
Resources
A total of $14,269,622 was expended for operating ex-penses
of the district courts in 1979-80, an increase of
twelve percent over 1978-79 expenditures of
$12,745,520. Included in the total are expenses of court
reporters for district courts as well as personnel costs of
district court judges and magistrates. The 1979-80 total
is 20. 1% of the General Fund expenditures for operation
of the entire Judicial Department. This is approximately
equal to the district courts percentage share of the total
Judicial Department expenditures for the previous fiscal
year.
1979-80 Caseload
Including most civil and all criminal cases, a total of
1,458,647 cases were filed in the district courts from July
1, 1979 through June 30, 1980. This total is 1.8% higher
than 1978-79 filings of 1,432,067 cases. The relatively
small increase in the combined (civil and criminal) figure
results from a sharp increase in district court civil case
filings (315,867 cases in 1979-80 -- 13.0% above the
1978-79 total of 279,548 cases) which is offset in part by
a decline in filings of district court criminal cases (from
1,152,519 cases filed in 1978-79 to 1,142,780 in 1979-80).
Total district court dispositions in 1979-80 (1,415,924
cases) lagged slightly behind the filings total, with the
result that the number of cases pending rose over the
course of the year. A total of 243,039 cases were pending
on June 30, 1980. This is an increase of 21.3% over the
number pending at the end of the previous year.
More detailed information on district court civil and
criminal caseloads is contained in Part IV of this Report.
* Increased from $500, effective October 1, 1979.
** Increased from $300, effective October 1, 1979
33
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The District Courts
Educational Activity
Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Department
sponsored the following educational activities for dis-trict
court judges in 1979-80:
• two orientation sessions for new judges, August 31-
September 1 and September 21-22 at the Institute of
Government in Chapel Hill, attended by 5 new
judges;
• a course on Juvenile Code revision and communi-ty-
based alternatives,, September 14-15, 1979 in
Chapel Hill, attended by 37 judges;
• the district judges' Fall Seminar, November 2-3 in
Asheville, attended by 97 judges;
• two orientation sessions for new judges, November
30-December 1 and January 19 at the Institute of
Government in Chapel Hill, attended by 6 new
judges; and
• the Summer Seminar of the Association of District
Court Judges, June 22-25 in Southern Pines, at-tended
by 77 judges.
Grant funds were also used to sponsor court reporters
attending the North Carolina Shorthand Reporters
Association seminar that was held in Fayetteville on
February , 1980. A total of 6 district court reporters at-tended
this session.
By statute, new magistrates are required to satisfac-torily
complete a course of basic training of at least 40
hours within six months of taking office. Two sessions
of this course were offered at the institute of Govern-ment
in Chapel Hill in 1979-80. The first (July 23-27 and
August 6-10) was attended by 34 new magistrates; the
second (January 28-February 1 and February 4-8) was
attended by 29 new magistrates.
The Judicial Department also sponsored five refresh-er
course sessions for magistrates, September 10-11 in
Chapel Hill (107 magistrates), September 12-13 in
Chapel Hill (65 magistrates), October 8-10 in Fontana
Village (91 magistrates), October 15 in Charlotte (18
magistrates), and October 25-26 in Kinston (67
magistrates).
The Association of District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1980)
George F. Bason, Raleigh, President
Larry Thomas Black, Charlotte, Vice President
Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton, Secretary-
Treasurer
George Britt, Tarboro,
William G. Pearson, II, Durham, and
Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton,
Additional Executive Committee Members
34
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
(As of June 30, 1980)
District
1 THOMAS S. WATTS, Elizabeth City
2 WILLIAM C. GRIFFIN, JR., Williamston
3 ELI BLOOM, Greenville
4 WILLIAM H.ANDREWS, Jacksonville
5 W.ALLEN COBB, Wilmington
6 W. H.S. BURGWYN, JR., Woodland
7 HOWARDS. BONEY, JR., Tarboro
8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro
9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford
10 J. RANDOLPH RILEY, Raleigh
11 JOHNW.TWISDALE,Smithfield
12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville
13 LEEJ.GREER,Whiteville*
14 DAN K.EDWARDS, JR., Durham
15A HERBERT F.PIERCE, Graham
15B WADE BARBER, JR., Pittsboro
16 JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton
District
17 FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR., Reidsville
18 MICHAEL A. SCHLOSSER, Greensboro
19A JAMES E.ROBERTS, Concord
19B RUSSELL G.WALKER, JR., Asheboro
20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe
21 DONALD K.TISDALE, Winston-Salem
22 H.W.ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington
23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro
24 CLYDE M. ROBERTS, Marshall
25 DONALD E.GREENE, Newton
26 PETER S.GILCHRIST, Charlotte
27A JOSEPH G. BROWN, Gastonia
27B W. HAMPTON CHILDS, JR., Lincolnton
28 RONALD C. BROWN, Asheville
29 M. LEONARD LOWE, Rutherfordton
30 MARCELLUS BUCHANAN, III, Sylva
35
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The District Attorneys
The State is divided into prosecutorial districts which
correspond to its judicial districts, and a district attor-ney
is elected by the voters of each of the 33 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 calen-daring
criminal cases for trial.
Resources
Each district attorney is authorized to employ, on a
full-time basis, the number of assistant district attorneys
specified by statute for his district. As of June 30, 1980, a
total of 197 assistant district attorneys were authorized
for the 33 districts. The district attorney of District 26
(Mecklenbury County) had the largest staff — 19 assis-tants
- - and the district attorney of District 24 the
smallest — two assistants.
Each district attorney is also authorized to employ, on
a full-time basis, an administrative assistant to assist in
preparing cases for trial and to expedite the criminal
court docket. The district attorney in 19 of the 33 dis-tricts
is empowered to employ an investigative assistant,
to aid in the investigation of cases preparatory to trial.
1979-80 Caseload
A total of 61,824 criminal cases were filed in superior
courts from July 1, 1979 through June 30, 1980; 36,830
of these cases were felonies and 24,994 were mis-demeanors
on appeal from district courts. Combined
with the 17,000 cases pending on July 1, 1979, the dis-trict
attorneys' superior court caseload for the year
totalled 78,824 cases. Of these, a total of 61,216 cases
(36,169 felonies and 25,047 misdemeanor appeals) were
disposed of, 77.7% of the caseload. Still pending in
superior courts on June 30, 1980 were 17,608 cases (10,-
803 felonies and 6,805 misdemeanor appeals), which is
an increase of 3.6% over the number pending on July 1,
1979.*
In district courts, a total of 1,142,780 criminal cases
were filed during 1979-80 (777,264 motor vehicle cases
and 365,516 other criminal cases). The total is virtually
identical to the 1978-79 total of 1,152,519 criminal cases
filed, the result of a slight decrease in motor vehicle case
filings that was nearly offset by an increase in other
criminal case filings. A total of 121,645 criminal cases
were pending as of July 1, 1979; this figure, combined
with cases filed during the year, totalled 1,264,425 cases
to be handled in district court. This cannot be regarded
as the district attorneys' ''caseload," however, since
many district court criminal cases are disposed of by
defendant's waiver of appearance and plea of guilty
before a magistrate or clerk of superior court staff, and
these cases do not require the district attorneys' atten-tion.
A total of 495,642 cases were disposed of by waiver
in 1979-80 (44.6% of all district court criminal case dis-positions),
and an additional 28,813 cases which were
filed in 1979-80 were disposed of by waiver after June
30, 1980. When these are excluded, the district attor-ney's
district court caseload for the year totalled 739,970
cases. Of these, 614,883 cases were disposed of, 83.1% of
the caseload. This percentage is very slightly above the
comparable figure (82.5%) for 1978-79. As of June 30,
1980, 153,900 criminal cases were pending in the district
courts of the State, an increase of 26.5% over the num-ber
pending on July 1, 1979.*
Additional information on the criminal caseloads in
the superior and districts courts is included in Part IV of
this Report.
As noted in Part I, specific figures on cases pending at the end of the fiscal year may have to be revised as additional information is
received from the 100 clerks of superior court offices.
36
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The District Attorneys
Educational Activity
Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Department
sponsored the following educational activities for dis-trict
attorneys and their staffs in 1979-80:
• a conference for administrative assistants, Septem-ber
19-21 at the Institute of Government in Chapel
Hill, attended by 21 administrative assistants, four
witness-attendance coordinators, and one in-vestigator;
• the Fall Conference of the District Attorneys
Association, September 27-29 in Raleigh, attended
by 22 district attorneys and 82 assistant district at-torneys;
an orientation session for new prosecutors, October
15-19 at the Institute of Government in Chapel
Hill, attended by 30 new assistant district attorneys;
the state-wide conference for juvenile court coun-selors
and judges, November 4-5 in Asheville, was
attended by six assistant district attorneys;
a seminar on rape and sex offenses, March 18-21 in
Chapel Hill, attended by four district attorneys and
46 assistant district attorneys; and
the June Conference of the District Attorneys
Association, June 22-25 in Southern Pines, atten-ded
by 13 district attorneys and 72 assistant district
attorneys.
The District Attorneys Association
(Officers as of June 30, 1980)
Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City, President
Joe Freeman Britt, Lumberton, Vice President
Wade Barber, Jr., Pittsboro, Vice President,
Legislative Affairs
Ronald J. Bowers, Salisbury, Secretary-Treasurer
37
CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT
(As of June 30, 1980)
COUNTY
Alamance
Alexander
Alleghany
Anson
Ashe
Avery
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Buncombe
Burke
Cabarrus
Caldwell
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Catawba
Chatham
Cherokee
Chowan
Clay
Cleveland
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
Davidson
Davie
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Forsyth
Franklin
Gaston
Gates
Graham
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Haywood
Henderson
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Iredell
Jackson
CLERK OF COURT
Louise B. Wilson
Martha J. Adams
Joan B. Atwood
R. Frank Hightower
Virginia W. Johnson
Billy J. Vance
Bessie J. Cherry
Thomas S. Speight
Smithy S. Harris
K. Gregory Bellamy
J. Ray Elingburg
Major A. Joines
Estus B. White
Mary Hood Thompson
Catherine W. McCoy
Mary Austin
J. P. Moore
Eunice W. Mauney
Janice Oldham
Rose Mary Crooke
Lena M. Leary
Ralph A. Allison
Ruth S. Dedmon
Lacy R. Thompson
Dorothy Pate
George T. Griffin
Wiley B. Elliot
C. S. Meekins
Hugh Shepherd
Delores C. Jordan
John A. Johnson
James Leo Carr
Curtis Weaver
A. E. Blackburn
Ralph S. Knott
Betty B. Jenkins
Tobe Daniels, Jr.
O.W. Hooper, Jr.
Mary Ruth C. Nelms
Cleo W. McKeel
Joseph E. Slate, Jr.
J. C. Taylor
Georgia Lee Brown
William G. Henry
Thomas H. Thompson
Richard T. Vann
Juanita Edmund
W. Allen Credle
Carl G. Smith
Frank Watson, Jr.
COUNTY
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Lincoln
Macon
Madison
Martin
McDowell
Mecklenburg
Mitchell
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
Perquimans
Person
Pitt
Polk
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Rowan
Rutherford
Sampson
Scotland
Stanly
Stokes
Surry
Swain
Transylvania
Tyrrell
Union
Vance
Wake
Warren
Washington
Watauga
Wayne
Wilkes
Wilson
Yadkin
Yancey
CLERK OF COURT
Will R. Crocker
Ronald H. Metts
Sion H.Kelly
M. E. Creech
Nellie L. Bess
A. W. Perry
James W. Cody
Mary K. Wynne
Ruth B.Williams
Robert M. Blackburn
Arthur Ray Ledford
Charles M.Johnson
Charles M. McLeod
Rachel M. Joyner
Louise D. Rehder
R. Jennings White, Jr.
Everitte Barbee
Frank S. Frederick
Sadie W. Edwards
Frances W. Thompson
Frances N. Futch
W.J.Ward
W. Thomas Humphries
Sandra Gaskins
Judy P. Arledge
John H. Skeen
Miriam F. Greene
Ben G. Floyd, Jr.
FrankieC. Williams
Francis Glover
Joan M. Jenkins
Charlie T. McCullen
J. Mason McGregor
Joe H. Lowder
Robert Miller
DavidJ.Beal
Harold H. Sandlin
Marian M. McMahon
Jessie L. Spencer
Nola H. Cunningham
Mary Lou M. Barnett
J. Russell Nipper
Anne F. Davis
Louise S. Allen
John T. Bingham
Shelton Jordan
Wayne Roope
William G. Stewart
Harold J. Long
Arnold E. Higgins
38
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The Clerks of Superior Court
A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for four-year
terms by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100
counties. The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide
special proceedings and is, ex officio, judge of probate,
in addition to performing record-keeping and ad-ministrative
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 proceedings to administer the estates of minors
and incompetent adults. The right of appeal from the
clerks' judgments in such cases lies to the superior court.
The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue
search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and
other process necessary to execute the judgments en-tered
in the superior and district courts of his county.
For certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is
authorized to accept defendants' waiver 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 Ad-ministrative
Office of the Courts.
In most counties, the clerk continued to perform cer-tain
functions related to preparation of civil case calen-dars,
and in many counties the clerk's staff assisted the
district attorney in preparing some criminal case calen-dars
as well. Ending with fiscal year 1979-80, ultimate
responsibility for civil case calendaring was vested in
"calendar committees" chaired by the clerk and com-prised
of members of the county bar. (As of July 1, 1980,
these committees were abolished by the Supreme Court
and ultimate responsibility for civil case calendaring was
vested in the State's senior resident superior court judges
and chief district court judges.) Day-to-day calendar
preparation is the clerk's responsibility in all districts ex-cept
those served by "trial court administrators."
Resources
A total of $24,283,713 was expended in 1979-80 for
operation of the 100 clerks of superior court offices, an
increase of 13.2% over 1978-79 expenditures of $2 1,457,
-
921. Included in the total were expenditures for jurors'
fees, supplies, postage, telephone and office expenses for
all local Judicial Department personnel, and the salaries
and benefits of the clerks and their staffs. The 1979-80
total made up 34.1% of General Fund expenditures for
operating expenses of the entire Judicial Department;
this percentage share of the total is approximately equal
to the percentage expended for operations of the clerks'
offices in 1978-79.
1979-80 Caseload
Filings of estates cases totalled 34,670 cases in
1979-80, an increase of 5.3% over the number (32,926)
filed in 1978-79. Estates case dispositions totalled 32,093
cases in 1979-80, or 2.3% more than the 1978-79 total of
21,378 cases. As has been usual in recent years, however,
filings outnumbered dispositions in 1979-80 and the
number of pending estates cases at the end of the year
(50,534 cases) was larger than the number pending at the
beginning (47,957 cases), an increase of 5.4%;
There were 29,830 special proceedings filed in 1979-
80, an increase of 7.3% over 1978-79 filings of 27,799
cases. Special proceedings case dispositions also rose,
although at a slower rate: the 1979-80 total of 27,925
cases disposed of is 4.5% above the previous year's total
of 26,717. The result was a widening gap between filings
and dispositions and an increase in the number of cases
pending, from 19,453 cases pending on July 1, 1979 to
21,358 cases pending on June 30, 1980. This represents
an increase of almost ten percent.
More detailed information on the clerks' estates and
special proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of
this Report.
39
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The Clerks of Superior Court
Educational Activity
Utilizing State appropriations, the Judicial Depart-ment
sponsored the following educational activities for
clerks of superior court in 1979-80:
• the Annual Conference of the Association of Clerks
of Superior Court, July 25-27 in Winston-Salem, at-tended
by 81 clerks; and
• the Annual Conference of the Association of Assis-tant
and Deputy Clerks of Superior Court, July 18-
20 in Asheville, attended by 287 assistant and
deputy clerks.
Association of Clerks of Superior Court
(Officers as of June 30, 1980)
A.E. Blackburn, Forsyth County, President
Ben G. Floyd, Jr., Robeson County,
First Vice President
Louise B. Wilson, Alamance County
Second Vice President
George T. Griffin, Cumberland County,
Secretary
Nola H. Cunningham, Union County, Treasurer
Major Joines, Burke County,
Shelton Jordan, Wayne County, and
Ruth B. Williams, McDowell County (ex officio),
Additional Executive Committee Members
40
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
Public Defenders
In 1979-80 there were five public defenders in North
Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 12, 18, 26, 27A and
28. (By action of the 1979 General Assembly in its
second session in 1980, a sixth public defender will begin
serving District 3 on January 1, 1981.) These officials
and their assistants provide legal representation for per-sons
in designated categories who are determined to be
indigent. The public defender for District 28 is appoin-ted
by the senior resident superior court judge from
recommendations submitted by the district bar; for the
other districts, the appointment is by the Governor from
recommendations of the respective district bars. Their
terms are four years. Each public defender is by statute
provided one full-time assistant; additional full-time or
part-time assistants may be authorized by the Ad-ministrative
Office of the Courts.
Duties
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
proceeding which may result in (or which seeks relief
from) confinement, a fine of $500 or more, or extradi-tion
to another State; a proceeding alleging mental il-lness
or incapacity which may result in hospitalization,
sterilization, or the loss of certain property rights; and
juvenile proceedings which may result in confinement,
transfer to superior court for a felony trial, or a transfer
of custody upon a finding of abuse or neglect.
Most cases of State-paid representation of indigents
in these five districts are handled by the public defen-ders.
In unusual circumstances — such as the existence
of a conflict of interests — an indigent in one of these
districts may be represented by private counsel, appoin-ted
by the court and paid a fee by the State for his legal
services. In the other 28 districts the assigned private
counsel system is the only one used.
Resources
A total of $1,404,715 was expended for the operation
of the five public defenders' offices in 1979-80, an in-crease
of 22.2% over 1978-79 expenditures of $1,149,780.
The 1979-80 total is two percent of all General Fund ex-penditures
for the operating expenses of the entire
Judicial Department. This percentage share is slightly
above the percentage of total Judicial Department ex-penditures
spent for the public defenders' offices in
1978-79.
1979-80 Caseload
The five public defenders' offices handled a total of
11,558 cases, including both trials and appeals, in 1979-
80. This represents an increase of 5.3% over the 10,972
cases handled by these offices during the 1978-79 fiscal
year. Additional information on the operation of these
offices is contained in Part III, "Cost and Case Data on
Representation of Indigents."
Educational Activity
Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Department
sponsored the following educational activities for public
defenders in 1979-80:
• a Fall training session, October 24-26 in Boone, at-tended
by the five public defenders and 37 assistant
public defenders; and
• the Public Defenders Association Spring Con-ference,
May 28-30 in Wrightsville Beach, attended
by four public defenders and 30 assistant public
defenders.
PUBLIC DEFENDERS
(As of June 30, 1980)
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
The Association of Public Defenders
(Officers as of June 30, 1980)
Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville, President
Lawrence B. Langston, Gastonia, Vice President
Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte, Secretary
Deno G. Economou, Greensboro, Treasurer
41
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The Administrative Office of the C ourts
The Director of the Administrative Office of the
Courtsand staff perform a variety of functions for the
Judicial Department; these are enumerated in Article
29 of Chapter 7A of the North Carolina General Stat-utes.
The Director is appointed by the Chief Justice of
the North Carolina Supreme Court and serves at his
pleasure.
Effective January 1, 1980, the Administrative Office
was reorganized as reflected in the chart below. The pur-pose
of the reorganization was to provide a more unified
centralized management structure along functional lines.
The Assistant Director for Legal Services, in addition to
assisting the Chief in making assignments of superior
court judges and assisting the Supreme Court in prepara-tion
of calendars of superior court trial sessions, now has
responsibility for Juvenile Services, the Office of Coun-sel,
and the Research and Planning Office.
The Assistant Director for Management Services (a
new position) has responsibility for Fiscal Services, Per-sonnel,
and Records Management.
The activities of the various components of the Ad-ministrative
Office of the Courts during 1979-80 are
summarized in the following pages.
A total of $1,800,869 was expended from the State's
General Fund for operating expenses of the Ad-ministrative
Office of the Courts during 1979-80, which
amounts to 2.5% of General Fund expenditures for the
Judicial Department.
Organization of the Administrative Office of the Courts
(As of June 30, 1980)
Director
Assistant Director for Management Services Assistant Director for Legal Services
Information Services Trial Court Services
Fiscal Services Juvenile Services
Records Management Personnel Counsel Research & Planning
42
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The Administrative Office Of the Courts
Fiscal Services
The Controller supervises this component of manage-ment
services which includes budgeting, payroll and
other disbursements and related accounting, auditing,
purchasing, printing, and warehousing of forms and sup-plies.
During the 1979-80 fiscal year, expenditures for the
operation of the Judicial Department totaled $71,862,-
275. Judicial Department receipts, consisting of courts
costs, fees, fines and forfeitures, and recovery of pay-ments
in judgments for indigent representation totalled
$49,31 1,081. As required by State statutes these receipts
were disbursed as follows: $21,467,077 to the State
Treasurer for the General Fund and $2,439,492 for the
Law Enforcement Officers' Retirement Fund; $24,588,-
139 distributed among the 100 counties; and $816,373
distributed among various municipalities throughout the
State.
An important aspect of fiscal operations in the
Judicial Department is the handling of funds by the clerk
of superior court located in each of the 100 counties of
the State. Uniform accounting rules and procedures are
prescribed for these activities in the clerks' offices, which
include receipt and disbursement of court costs, fees,
fines, bond forfeitures, and cash bonds, as well as pay-ments
in accord with court judgments.
During 1979-80 a pilot project featuring an electronic
cash register/validating system was implemented in the
clerk's office in Cumberland county, to complement the
mini-computer accounting system that has been opera-tional
for some years. Results of this experimental pro-ject
indicate that the cashier's operation in the clerk's of-fice
is thereby made more efficient.
Records Management
The Records Management Officer monitors the
record-keeping procedures applicable to the activities of
the office of clerk of superior court in each of the 100
counties, and develops recommendations for improved
clerk office operations, providing assistance to in-dividual
offices as required. He reviews issues of staffing
adequacy and job duties pertaining to the clerks' offices
and participates in training activities for clerk personnel.
Liaison is maintained with other governmental agencies
which have working relationships with clerks' offices: the
Division of Archives and History on records manage-ment
and retention, the Division of Motor Vehicles on
traffic case reports, and county governments on space re-quirements
for clerks' offices. He participates in review
of new legislation affecting the clerks' offices, in dis-seminating
information on such changes in the laws and
in developing record-keeping procedures required by
new legislation.
In addition, the Records Management Officer super-vises
a records management program for the Ad-ministrative
Office of the Courts.
During 1979-80 a criminal card index system was in-stalled
in the clerk's office in three counties, bringing to a
total of 40 counties in which this system is now used. The
criminal card index system has replaced a more cumber-some
indexing system, providing a more convenient
source for ready information.
Personnel
The Personnel Officer supervises a comprehensive per-sonnel
program for the approximately 3,400 employees
of the Judicial Department, including administration of
a classification and pay plan for the large majority of em-ployees,
certification of employee salaries, administra-tion
of fringe benefits (including longevity and
workmen's compensation payments) and administration
of an employee relations program for personnel of the
Administrative Office of the Courts. He is also responsi-ble
for the assignment of court reporters for the trial
courts.
During the 1979-80 year, in addition to administration
of regular personnel activities, the following were accom-plished:
(1) Procedures were developed for implementation, as
of July 1, 1980, of changes in granting perfor-mance
salary increases to employees whose
salaries are at step 3 or above in their respective
salary grades. Instead of having such merit salary
increments based on the anniversary date of em-ployment,
a new policy established four quarterly
dates (the first day of the months of August,
November, February and May) on which perfor-mance
salary increases would be effective.
(2) Comprehensive classification and pay reviews
were conducted in the clerks' offices in 12 coun-ties;
and the planning and scheduling of similar
reviews in other clerks' offices to take place dur-ing
the coming year were completed.
(3) A special review of the classification and pay plan
for the 31 chief court counselor positions in the
Juvenile Services Division was begun.
Juvenile Services
The Juvenile Services Division administers the state-wide
juvenile court counselor program for children al-leged
or adjudicated to be delinquent or undisciplined.
Services include intake (pre-hearing studies of children
alleged to be delinquent or undisciplined and determi-nation
whether or not a petition should be filed in dis-trict
court); probation (supervision within the com-munity
for those adjudicated to be delinquent or un-
43
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The Administrative Office Of The Courts
disciplined and who have not been committed to train-ing
school); and aftercare (supervision within the com-munity
for children conditionally released from a train-ing
school). The services are delivered locally by court
counselors assigned to each judicial district, under the
immediate supervision of a chief court counselor.
As of January 1 , 1 980 a new Juvenile Code became ef-fective
for the State. The new code specifies several
categories of non-divertible felony offenses for intake
and introduced a new category of supervision for un-disciplined
and delinquent children. The new category,
"protective supervision," is the status of a juvenile who
has been adjudicated delinquent or undisciplined and is
placed under the supervision of a court counselor but is
not on probation. The new category does not remove or
replace that for undisciplined children, and may be used
in lieu of probation for delinquent children. The dis-positional
alternatives for delinquent children were ex-panded
and include restitution, fines, community ser-vices,
confinement on an intermittent basis in an ap-propriate
detention facility, and restriction of driving
privileges. The disposition of probation was limited to a
length of one year with the provision for a one-year ex-tension
after a hearing to determine the need for such ex-tension.
During the 1979-80 fiscal year a total of 8,306 new
cases were added to the court counselors' probation
caseloads and a total of 8,752 cases were terminated.
The daily average probation caseload, statewide, was 5,-
884 during the year, compared with a daily average
caseload during 1978-79 of 6,378 cases. The precise
reasons for the 7.75% decrease in daily average statewide
caseload handled by the court counselors cannot be
identified. However, it appears that this development
was due, at least in part, to the various changes in the
Juvenile Code described above.
Program reviews and evaluations were conducted in
each judicial district during the year to determine the
level of services being delivered and adherence to
minimum standards of the Division which are uniformly
applicable across the State.
Training continued to receive major emphasis during
the year, including the following activities:
• one orientation session for 12 new court counselors;
• a required course in seven sessions for court coun-selors,
counselor trainees, intake counselors, and
supervisory counselors, with a total of 230 persons
attending;
• a required course for chief court counselors and ad-ministrative
personnel, attended by 30 persons;
• a one-day session on the Juvenile Code attended by
14 chief counselors;
• a course on the Juvenile Code revisions and the
community-based alternatives programs, attended
by 37 judges;
• Third N.C. Conference for Juvenile Court Coun-selors
and Judges, on the theme of "Juvenile
Justice—Treatment and Prevention Perspectives",
with 270 in attendance; and
• nine special interest courses in counseling tech-niques
and theories, presented as optional training
in a total of 10 sessions across the State, with a total
attendance of 132.
During the year, tuition fees were reimbursed for a
total of 19 Division employees, and a total of 105 Divi-sion
employees participated in individual learning
projects.
Counsel
The Counsel for the Administrative Office of the
Courts provides legal advice and assistance to clerks of
court, magistrates, and other directly concerned with
courtroom proceedings, as well as to administrative
personnel in the Judicial Department. While most fre-quently
this service is by telephone response, often the
need for guidance is met through memoranda for gen-eral
distribution.
Forms for use in the trials courts and in the offices of
the clerks of superior court are prepared and up-dated,
usually upon need arising from new legislation or recent
court decisions.
The Counsel participates in educational and training
activities for the clerks of superior courts and their assis-tants
and deputies, including special programs for new
clerks and for new employees in the clerks' offices.
During the 1979-80 year, requests for legal assistance
by telephone averaged 10 to 15 per day; and requests for
legal assistance requiring written responses averaged
about 15 per week.
Research and Planning
This division has responsibility for conducting
research and preparing reports and papers on problems
or issues relevant to the courts of North Carolina. Staff
assistance is provided for the North Carolina Judicial
Planning Committee. In addition, the division has
responsibilities for the LEAA grants management func-tions
for the Judicial Department, and for the compila-tion,
printing and distribution of the Annual Reports of
the Administrative Office of the Courts.
During the first part of the 1979-80 year, work was
completed on the production and distribution of the
1978 Annual Report. The Annual Report was then com-piled
on a calendar-year basis. The policy decision was
then made by the Director of the Administrative Office
of the Courts to change the annual reporting period
44
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The Administrative Office Of The Courts
from a calendar year to a fiscal year basis (July 1
through June 30). Thus, during the latter months of the
1979-80 year a second annual report was compiled, prin-ted
and distributed, covering the period July, 1978
through June 30, 1979.
During the Fall of 1979 the Research and Planning
staff conducted studies regarding the principal problems
and issues confronting the North Carolina court system
and, on behalf of the Judicial Planning Committee, sur-veyed
some 600 Judicial Department officials and mem-bers
of the North Carolina Bar, to obtain their views on
this subject. The results of that survey were reported to
the Judicial Planning Committee. Thereafter, in
February, 1980, the Committee adopted an "Agenda for
1980-83", comprising its priority list of issues and
problems confronting the North Carolina courts which
should receive attention during the next three years.
Copies of that Agenda were produced and distributed to
officials of the Judicial Department, members of the
State Bar and to various officials in the Executive and
Legislative branches of government.
The Research and Planning staff developed proposed
LEAA fund allocations for the Judicial Department for
the 1980-81 Federal fiscal year, for the consideration of
the Judicial Planning Committee in April, 1980.
Thereafter, the decision became final at the Federal level
that the LEAA grant program would not be continued.
Thus, new LEAA grant funds for the 1980-81 Federal
fiscal year were not received.
Although new LEAA grant funds were not received in
1980, several LEAA projects will remain active for
another year or two, from funds previously ap-propriated
by the Congress. The LEAA Grants
Management Section was involved during 1979-80 in the
on-going administration of 16 LEAA-fund projects. Ap-plications
for 13 projects were prepared and approved
for LEAA funding by the Governor's Crime Commis-sion,
the State Planning Agency for LEAA purposes. In
addition, the LEAA Grants Manager participated with
representatives of the Governor's Crime Commission in
a total of 11 monitoring visits for review of various
Judicial Department projects supported by LEAA
funds.
Information Services
This division has responsibility for collecting case
data and for implementing an automated information
system for the Judicial Department.
Case data is reported manually by the Clerks of Court
of the 100 North Carolina counties to this division for
data entry and computer processing. Case volume
statistics are generated from this information and
produced on a quarterly basis. In addition, juvenile case
data are reported and processed, thus bringing the num-ber
of transactions processed during the fiscal year over
the three million mark.
Additional progress was made on the automated in-formation
system during the 1979-80 year. Four coun-ties,
Franklin, Vance, Nash, and Warren, are now re-porting
case data through the information system for
district and superior court criminal cases. The Informa-tion
Services Division has provided to these counties
computer-produced district and superior court indexes,
district court calendars, and automatic (computer)
transfer of appeal cases for cases appealed from district
court to superior court. Services in the design and de-velopment
stage include computer-produced superior
court calendars, warrants, orders for arrest, and sub-poenas.
Training of clerk office personnel in the area of
automation has not yet begun in other counties but is
anticipated in the near future.
Trial Court Services
This division is responsible for directing the trial court
administrator program. From 1977 to 1979 this
program was operated as a pilot project in three judicial
districts (10th, 22d and 28th) under an LEAA grant. In
1979 the General Assembly provided full state funding
for the program and expanded it from three to ten posi-tions.
The responsibilities of the trial court ad-ministrator
as defined in G.S. 7A-355 include assisting
in the administration of the civil dockets of the judicial
district, management of the jury system, and such other
general management functions as may be assigned by
the court.
The State Supreme Court in its recently revised Rule 2
of the Supplemental Rules of Civil Procedure provided
for the delegation of civil case management respon-sibility
by the senior resident superior court judge and
the chief district court judge, to the trial court ad-ministrator
in those districts having such position. The
trail court administrator is appointed by and is responsi-ble
to the senior resident superior court judge of the
district.
With the exception of the three pilot judicial districts,
the trial court administrator program is still in its in-fancy.
Thus far, administrators have been employed in
an additional three districts (3d, 18th, and 26th).
As of June 30, 1980, the three pilot judicial districts
having a trial court administrator were among the top
four districts in the state having the lowest average age
of superior court civil cases. These three districts also
ranked among those with the highest ratio of disposi-tions
to caseload, with the metropolitan pilot districts
(the 10th and 28th) consistently ranking ahead of other
metropolitan districts in these measures of case manage-ment
efficiency.
45
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The Administrative Office Of The Courts
Although statewide figures on jury utilization are not
currently maintained, trial court administrators have
made significant improvements in their own judicial dis-tricts
in this area of court operations. The percentage of
jurors who are summond but not used for a trial has
been significantly reduced along with the cost per jury
selected. The "one-day, one-trial jury system" operated
by trial court administrators in Wake and Buncombe
Counties have proved popular with the public as well as
economical. The mandate of the program is to achieve
in every judicial district served by a trial court ad-ministrator
the level of performance attained in the pilot
districts. The Division also provides assistance in civil
case management to judges without trial court ad-ministrators.
This service was provided to more than a
third of the senior resident superior court judges during
the 1979-80 year. Plans are being made to extend this
program to chief district court judges and to develop
management assistance programs to address other areas
of local court administration.
Two jury-management projects were initiated during
the 1979-80 year. One project will produce a set of
guidelines to assist counties interested in computerizing
the jury selection and summoning process. Two docu-ments
will be prepared and published under this project,
with one document outlining in general terms the overall
design and operation of a computer-aided jury selection
system and the other containing software documenta-tion.
The completion of this project is scheduled to coin-cide
with preparation of the 1982-83 master jury lists by
the 100 counties of the State.
Another project begun during the year is the produc-tion
of audio-visual orientation programs for jurors in
six metropolitan courts. A model script was drafted, and
arrangements were made with other state agencies to
provide technical support for this project, which is ex-pected
to be completed during the coming year.
4b
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The Judicial Planning Committee
(Members as of June 30, 1980)
Associate Justice J. Frank Huskins, Raleigh, Chairman
Magistrate C.E. Baker, Holly Springs
District Court Judge Thomas D. Cooper, Jr.,
Burlington*
District Attorney Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Reidsville
Public Defender Wallace C. Harrelson, Greensboro
Representative Edward S. Holmes, Pittsboro
Clerk of Superior Court Rachel M. Joyner, Nashville
Superior Court Judge Henry A. McKinnon, Jr.,
Lumberton
Administrative Officer of the Courts Bert M. Montague,
Raleigh
* Deceased, August 30, 1980
Chief Court of Appeals Judge Naomi E. Morris,
Raleigh
Senator Willis P. Whichard, Durham
Ex-Officio Members
President of the N.C. State Bar E.K. Powe, Durham
President of the N.C. Bar Association Dewey W. Wells,
Elizabeth City
President of the N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers Alfred
S. Bryant, Jr., Charlotte
President of the N.C. Association of Black Lawyers
Charles L. Becton, Chapel Hill
President of the N.C. Association of Women Attorneys
Carolyn McAllaster, Durham
The Judicial Planning Committee 1979-80
The North Carolina Judicial Planning Committee was
appointed by the Supreme Court in 1977, as one of the
adjunct committees of the Governor's Crime Commis-sion,
the LEAA State Planning Agency. The Committee
considers problems and issues affecting States's courts
and provides recommendations to the State Supreme
Court as well as to the Governor's Crime Commission.
The Committee has a special role in the allocation of
LEAA funds available to the court system. (As the Con-gress
decided not to continue the LEAA grant program
for the 1980-81 Federal fiscal year, no new grants funds
were received beyond the 1979-80 fiscal period. Activity
under various projects funded by prior-year LEAA
funds will continue for another year or two until those
projects have run their course.)
Staff assistance for the Judicial Planning Committee
is provided by the Research and Planning Division of
the Administrative Office of the Courts.
During the period from July 1, 1979 through June 30,
1980, the Judicial Planning Committee had a total of
five meetings: August 7, 1979; September 7, 1979;
November 2, 1979; February 29, 1980 and April 25,
1980.
The meetings in August and September, 1979 were
joint meetings with the Corrections Committee of the
Governor's Crime Commission, to consider issues of
common interest to the courts and the correction agen-cies.
At the August meeting the two committees heard
reports on prison population projections, alternatives to
incarceration, deferred prosecution programs, regula-tion
of bail bondsmen and sentencing. At the Septem-ber,
1979 joint meeting the committees considered alter-natives
to incarceration and adopted several recommen-dations
to be forwarded to the Governor's Crime Com-mission,
relating to financial restitution for victims of
crime, community service programs, citizen dispute
mediation, and improved probation services.
At the November, 1979 and February 2, 1980
meetings, the Judicial Planning Committee approved
revisions to 1979-80 allocations of LEAA funds to the
Judicial Department, necessitated by reductions in the
amount of Federal funds received; and considered a
broad range of issues and problems identified as con-fronting
the court system, making conclusions on a list
of such issues regarded as of priority importance which
would be incorporated in an "agenda" to be further
considered during the 1980-83 period. Copies of this
special agenda report were thereafter distributed to
about 600 Judicial Department officials, members of the
North Carolina State Bar, and various officials of the
Legislative and Executive Branches of State Govern-ment.
47
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The Judicial Planning Committee
At its April, 1980 meeting the Committee adopted a result that no new LEAA funds were received for the
schedule of proposed LEAA allocations for various 1980-81 Federal fiscal year, beginning October 1, 1980.
Judicial Department projects, in anticipation of receipt Thus, for all practical purposes, the Judicial Planning
of LEAA funds for the 1980-81 fiscal year. Some Committee's special role in the allocation of LEAA
months thereafter, a final decision was made in the Con- funds for court system projects has ended,
gress to discontinue the LEAA grant program, with the
48
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The North Carolina Courts Commission
(Members as of June 30, 1980)
Appointed by the Governor
Hon. H. Parks Helms, Charlotte, Chairman
Charles L. Becton, Chapel Hill
Hon. David M. Britt, Raleigh
I.T. Valentine, Jr., Nashville
Hon. Louise B. Wilson, Graham
Appointed by the President of the Senate
Hon. Henson P. Barnes, Goldsboro
Fielding Clark, II, Hickory
E. Lawrence Davis, Winston-Salem
Becky Hundley, Thomasville
Howard F. Twiggs, Raleigh
Appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives
Harold L. Kennedy, Jr., Winston-Salem
Hon. Ralph S. Knott, Louisburg
William G. Smith, Wilmington
Jim Van Camp, Southern Pines
(Vacancy) 1
Ex officio
John W. Campbell, Lumberton, N.C. State Bar
Robert M. Clay, Raleigh, N.C. Bar Association
Bert M. Montague, Raleigh, Administrative Officer
of the Courts
John R. Jordan, Jr., of Raleigh, resigned his membership on the commission prior to June 30, 1980; a successor had not been appointed by
the Speaker of the House by the end of the fiscal year.
The North Carolina Courts Commission was esta-blished
by the 1979 General Assembly "to make con-tinuing
studies of the structure, organization, jurisdic-tion,
procedures and personnel of the Judicial Depart-ment
and of the General Court of Justice and to make
recommendations to the General Assembly for such
changes therein as will facilitate the administration of
justice.
"
The new Commission met first on March 17, 1980,
and again in April and May. It has begun to invite all
State officials and agencies dealing with the courts to
make presentations to the Commission of their sugges-tions
for improving the court system. From these
suggestions the Commision is establishing a priority list
of items for study, and it will make its recommendations
from its list. Topics under consideration by the Courts
Commission include:
— possible expansion of the Public Defender System;
- relief for the Appellate Division;
— the office of the district attorney;
— the office of the clerk of superior court
- decriminalization of minor traffic offenses, and
— the trial court administrator project.
Specific legislation is being formulated for presentation
to the 1981 General Assembly.
49
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80
The Judicial Standards Commission
(Members as of June 30, 1980)
Appointed by