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

              X /3
/C/ : /97l/7?
C-<Zs
NORTH CAROLINA STATE LIBRARY
RALEIGH
Norttf Carolina Courts
13T8-T3
N. C.
Doc.
MAT 3 1980
Annual Report
of ttje
Administratis ©ffice of XX\t Courts
The Cover: The Rutherford County Courthouse, in Rutherfordton, North Caro-lina,
was completed in 1926. It is a stately Renaissance Revival building faced with a
smooth stone veneer. Interior renovations have been minimal and many of the
original features and materials survive.
Worth Carolina State Library
Raleigh
/ 5
>
NORTH CAROLINA COURTS
1978 - 79
ANNUAL REPORT
of the
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
JUSTICE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
To The Honorable, The Chief Justice of
The Supreme Court of North Carolina
In accord with Section 7A-343 o\~ the North Carolina General Statutes I hereby transmit the
Fourteenth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July
1, 1978 - June 30, 1979.
Some significant changes in format and content are reflected in this year's report. First, the report
is on a fiscal year rather than calendar year basis. This permits a presentation of case data and other
information about the Judicial Department on the same time period used to report appropriations
and expenditures for the Judicial Department as well as for State government generally. Also, the
fiscal year format will permit us to have available more timely reports for the consideration of the
annual sessions of the General Assembly. In content, more emphasis is given to narrative, with the
view o\~ better serving the varying needs of different users of the report and placing in sharper focus
an overall perspective of Judicial Department activity.
Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compila-tion,
and presentation 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.
It is my hope that the annual report, for this and succeeding years, will make a contribution to
better understanding and support for continued improvement of North Carolina's system of courts.
Bert M. Montague
Director
February 15, 1980
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1979nort
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Parti
The 1978-1979 Judicial Year In Review
The 1978-1979 Judicial Year In Review
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations
Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 5
The Present Court System 9
Organization and Operations in 1978-79
The Supreme Court 13
The Court of Appeals 15
The Superior Courts 19
The District Courts 25
District Attorneys 29
Clerks of Superior Court 33
Public Defenders 35
Administrative Office of the Courts 36
The Judicial Planning Committee 41
The Judicial Council 43
The Judicial Standards Commission 45
Part III
Court Resources
Judicial Department Finances
Appropriations 47
Expenditures 50
Receipts 52
Distribution of Receipts 53
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 56
Judicial Department Personnel 63
Part IV
Courts Caseload Data
Appellate Division Caseload Data 67
Superior Court Division Caseload Data 73
District Court Division Caseload Data Ill
Tables, Charts and Graphs
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations
Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the
Present Court System 8
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina
Trial Courts 11
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 12
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 14
Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 17
Judges of Superior Court 18
Superior Court Case Filings and Dispositions, 1975-79 20
Superior Court Cases Pending at Year End 1 975-79 20
District Court Judges 23
District Court Case Filings and Disposition 1 975-79 26
District Court Cases Pending at Year End 1975-79 26
District Attorneys 28
Clerks o\" Superior Court 31
Organization of the Administrative Office of the Courts 36
The Judicial Planning Committee 41
The Judicial Council 43
The Judicial Standards Commission 44
Part III
Court Resources
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department 47
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department 48
General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of all
State Agencies and Department, 1974-79 49
General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department
Operations, 1974-79 51
Judicial Department Receipts, 1974-79 52
Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures collected by the
Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 54
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 57
Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 58
Categories of Assigned Counsel—Numbers of Cases and
Expenditures by County 59
Judicial Department Personnel 63
Part IV
Courts Caseload Data
Types of Cases Before the Supreme Court 68
Types of Petitions Before the Supreme Court 69
Supreme Court Caseload Summaries, 1977-78 and 1978-79 70
Caseload Trends in the Superior Courts, 1969-1979 74
Filings and Dispositions in the Superior Court Division 75
Caseload Summaries for Civil Cases in the Superior Courts 76
Caseload Trends of Civil Cases in the Superior Courts,
1969-1979 79
Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases in the Superior Court 80
Methods of Disposition of Superior Court Civil Cases 83
Ages of Civil Cases in the Superior Courts 84
Caseload Summaries for Estate and Special Proceedings
Cases in the Superior Courts 89
Caseload Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings, 1974-79 92
Caseload Summaries for Criminal Cases in the Superior
Courts 93
Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases in the Superior Courts,
1969-1979 96
Felonies and Misdemeanors in the Superior Courts 97
Manner of Disposition of Criminal Cases in the Superior
Courts 98
Methods of Disposition of Superior Court Criminal Cases 101
Ages of Felony and Misdemeanor Cases in the Superior Courts 102
Caseload Trends in the District Courts, 1971-1979 112
Filings and Dispositions in the District Court Division 113
Caseload Summaries for Civil Cases in the District Courts 114
Caseload Trends of Civil Cases in the District Courts,
1971-1979 117
General Civil, Domestic Relations, and Civil Magistrate
Cases in the District Courts 118
Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases in the District
Courts 119
Methods of Disposition of District Court Civil Cases 124
Ages of Civil Cases in the District Courts 125
Age Breakdown of Civil Cases Pending on
June 30, 1979 130
Offenses and Conditions Alleged in Juvenile
Petitions in the District Courts 131
Adjudicatory Hearings for Juvenile Cases in the
District Courts 1 34
Caseload Summaries for Criminal Cases in the
District Courts 137
Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases in the District Courts,
1971-1979 140
Motor Vehicle and Non-Motor Vehicle Cases in the District
Courts 141
in
Manner of Disposition of Motor Vehicle and Non-Motor
Vehicle Cases in the District Courts 142
Methods of Disposition of District Court Criminal
Cases 147
Ages of Motor Vehicle and Non-Motor Vehicle Cases in the
District Courts 148
Rankings for the 33 Judicial Districts Based Upon Percent of
Dispositions to Total Caseload 1 56
Rankings for the 100 Counties Based Upon Percent of
Dispositions to Total Caseload 157
IV
PARTI
THE 1978-1979 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
.'_>.
H^^HB
THE 1978-79 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
Annual Report Format and Content
This annual report covers North Carolina Judicial
Department operations for the 1978-79 fiscal year, dif-fering
substantially in format and content from prior
annual reports, which were on a calendar year basis.
Changing to the fiscal year period, July 1 through
June 30, offers two distinct advantages. First, the time
period on caseload data and analysis can now corres-pond
with the time period for reporting on appropria-tions
and expenditures. Second, the annual report for
the immediate past year can be compiled, printed and
distributed before or early during the legislative ses-sions
of each year instead of (as in the past) usually
after the legislative sessions have adjourned. For exam-ple,
the latest annual report available to the 1979 Legis-lative
Session was for calendar year, 1977, inasmuch as
the 1978 calendar year report was not completed and
available for distribution until after the Legislature had
adjourned.
A recommended "State Court Model Annual Re-port"
was distributed in 1979 by the National Center
for State Courts and the Conference of State Court
Administrators as a part of a continuing effort to
develop a national data base of state court statistics
and to assist in the improvement of annual reports on
state courts throughout the country. This recommend-ed
model was used as a guide in the production of this
annual report.
Beginning with the 1976 Annual Report on the Judi-cial
Department, North Carolina's reporting of trial
court case data has been much more comprehensive
than in previous years. The revised system of trial court
data reporting begun in 1976 is described in the Intro-duction
to the 1976 Annual Report on North Carolina
Courts. This current report differs from the past three
Annual Reports largely in presenting significantly more
narrative comment so as to provide a better overall
State perspective of Judicial Department activity.
In the interest of clarity and convenience for readers,
this Report is divided into four major parts, separated
by a divider page of the same color as the cover. Part I
consists of the "judicial year in review" statement. Part
II provides information on the historical development
of North Carolina courts, description of the present
court system and a summary review of organization
and operations during 1978-79. Part III covers court re-sources:
appropriations and expenditures during
1978-79 and summary information on the categories of
personnel which serve in the Judicial Department. Part
IV contains detailed caseload data and comment for
both the trial courts and the appellate courts.
As is apparent, the basic approach in format is to
present a "broad perspective" of court system organi-zation
and operations, proceeding then to a more de-tailed
data presentation. The objective is to meet well
the varying needs of different users of the Annual
Report.
Whatever progress is reflected in this year's Report
will hopefully be the foundation lor still further im-provements
in succeeding annual reports.
The Workload of the Courts
During 1978-79 there were some substantial increases
in the workload of North Carolina's courts, at appel-late
and trial court levels. As set out in more detail in
Part IV, the number of cases docketed in the Supreme
Court increased 8.1%; the number of opinions filed by
the Court increased 9.5%; the number of petitions
docketed increased 46.3%; and the number of petitions
allowed by the Supreme Court increased by 20.8%.
With respect to the superior courts, a total of 68,625
cases (civil and criminal) were filed during 1978-79, a
5.9% increase over the total of 64,819 cases filed during
calendar year, 1978. A total of 65,899 superior court
cases were disposed of during 1978-79, an increase of
6.8% over the total ol~ 61,713 cases disposed of during
calendar year, 1978. For year-end pending cases, the
total at the end of 1978-79 was 35,184, representing a
2.8% reduction from the total of 36,214 cases pending
at the end of calendar year, 1978. More detailed data
on superior court civil and criminal caseloads is pre-sented
in Part IV of this Report.
For the district courts, filings of cases decreased
slightly (less than one percent) during 1978-79 com-pared
with calendar year, 1978, as did dispositions: a
total of 1,402,518 for 1978-79 compared with 1,407,360
for calendar year, 1978. The number of district court
cases, civil and criminal, which were pending as of June
30, 1979 was about one percent greater (244,922) com-pared
with the number (242,920) pending at the end of
calendar year, 1978. As the more detailed data in Parts
II and IV of this Report show, the trend in district
court case activity over the past several years reflects a
significant increase. The slight decrease in current year
total case activity is not regarded as necessarily indica-tive
of a trend which will hold.
It is important to note that civil case filings in the
district courts during 1978-79 increased almost six per-cent,
and the number of civil cases pending at year-end
rose more than 1 1% over the prior year. The principal
decrease in district court filings during 1978-79 was in
the traffic offense category. This decrease (2.4%) in
traffic cases is undoubtedly related to recently reported
trends in the operation of private automobiles as re-flected,
for example, in decreasing state gasoline lax
revenues. The higher costs of gasoline appear to be
prompting automobile owners to drive less than they
would otherwise, and at lower speeds. Whether the de-creases
in traffic case activity in the district courts dur-
THE 1978-79 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
ing 1978-79 reflect a trend for this category of cases
which will hold during the next few years remains to be
seen. Obviously, if private automobile use decreases, or
does not continue to increase as in the past, the volume
of traffic offenses which will come before the district
courts in the State will be affected.
Legislative Highlights
Constitutional Amendments
By the required three-fifths vote in each house, the
Legislature approved a proposed amendment to the
State Constitution, to be voted on statewide at the gen-eral
election in the Fall of 1980, which provides that
only a person who is authorized to practice law in the
State will be eligible for appointment or election to a
judgeship. Under the present State Constitution a non-lawyer
can serve as a judge in any of the courts, appel-late
as well as the trial courts. Non-lawyers have not in
the past been appointed or elected to the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or the superior court.
Eight non-lawyers have been elected district court
judges; but any non-lawyer sitting judge would be ex-empted
from application of the proposed constitutional
amendment under a "grandfather clause."
A proposed constitutional amendment providing for
"nonpartisan merit selection" of judges failed to gain
the necessary three-fifths legislative approval for sub-mission
to a statewide vote.
Censure or Removal of a Supreme Court Justice
The statutes pertaining to the Judicial Standards
Commission were amended to provide that if the re-spondent
is a member of the State Supreme Court, the
recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission
will go to the Court of Appeals for action instead of to
the Supreme Court. In such case, the Chief Judge and
the six senior judges on the Court of Appeals, exclud-ing
any judge serving on the Judicial Standards Com-mission,
would act on the recommendation of the Judi-cial
Standards Commission.
Court Studies
The General Assembly reestablished the North Caro-lina
Courts Commission which will have a continuing
responsibility to review court organization and opera-tion
issues and submit recommendations for improve-ment.
Five members of this Commission are appointed
by the Governor, five by the President of the Senate,
and five by the Speaker of the House. The Legislature
also gave this Commission four specific study assign-ments:
consideration of administrative adjudication of
traffic cases in lieu of initial filing of such cases in the
district courts; a study of the offices of the Clerk of
Superior Court and the position of trial court adminis-trator;
and a study of the feasibility of making financial
settlement to persons convicted and imprisoned whose
terms of imprisonment are later shown to have been
legally erroneous.
The Legislative Research Commission (an agency of
the General Assembly) was directed to study the laws
of evidence with the view of proposing an evidence
code for the State; and the Criminal Code Commission,
appointed by the Attorney General and responsible for
studies in the criminal law and procedure area, was di-rected
to study the defense of insanity in criminal cases.
Reports on these matters are to be presented to the
1981 General Assembly.
Additional District Court Judges
Nine additional district court judges were authorized
by the General Assembly, one each in the following
judicial districts: 1st, 3rd, 4th. 5th, 13th, 14th. 26th,
27B, and 29th.
Presumptive Sentencing Law
A presumptive sentencing law (G.S. 15A- 1340.1 et
seq.) was enacted by the 1979 General Assembly, to be
applicable to felonies committed on or after July 1,
1980. The act divides felonies into 10 classes and sets a
presumptive sentence for each class other than those
for which the death penalty or life imprisonment is
mandated by statute. The sentencing judge must im-pose
the presumptive sentence unless he gives written
reasons for the court record for not doing so. However,
unless otherwise expressly provided by statute for a
particular offense, the judge retains full discretion to
suspend a prison term, impose probation supervision,
sentence a defendant as a youthful offender or impose
consecutive terms for multiple offenses without giving
reasons.
In imposing a prison term for a felony conviction,
the sentencing judge may consider any relevant miti-gating
or aggravating circumstance; and he must con-sider
the following factors: (1) aggravating - in com-mitting
the offense the defendant inflicted bodily injury
or property damage substantially in excess of the mini-mum
required to prove the offense, or the defendant
induced others to participate in the offense or provided
leadership of others in committing the offense; (2) miti-gating
— defendant had no prior criminal record or a
record only of minor misdemeanors, defendant inflict-ed
minimum bodily injury or property damage, was a
passive participant or had a minor role, suffered from a
mental or physical condition not sufficient to constitute
a defense but which significantly reduced his culpabil-ity,
the defendant was of such age or limited mental
capacity as to be substantially lacking in sound judg-ment,
or defendant had made partial or full restitution
to the victim of the crime. Further, the sentencing
THE 1978-79 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
judge is required to take into account a negotiated plea
and any circumstance arising from the evidence which
is found by the judge to have mitigating value.
Second Grand Jury Authorized
Section 1 5A-622 of the North Carolina General Stat-utes
was amended to authorize the senior resident su-perior
court judge in a district to expedite criminal
prosecutions by impaneling a second grand jury in any
county of the district, to sit concurrently with the regu-lar
grand jury.
First Appearance on Felony Charge
Section 15A-601 of the General Statutes was amend-ed
to provide, effective October 1, 1979, that the clerk
of superior court may conduct the first appearance pro-ceeding
for one charged with a felony if a district court
judge is not available within the 96-hour period re-quired
by statute.
Revised Juvenile Code
Relevant to the jurisdiction and authority of district
court judges in juvenile matters, and to the responsibili-ties
of juvenile court counselors, the General Assembly
enacted a new Juvenile Code, based upon a report of
the Juvenile Code Revision Committee which was es-tablished
by the 1977 General Assembly. The new code
(G.S. 7A-516 et seq.) becomes effective on January 1,
1980.
Jurisdiction of Magistrates
The jurisdiction of magistrates in small claims cases
was increased from $500 to $800, and the jurisdictional
amount involved in worthless check charges heard by
magistrates was increased from $300 to $400. These
changes were made effective October I, 1979.
Appropriations
State funds were appropriated for the following addi-tional
positions in the Judicial Department: nine dis-trict
court judges; 18 assistant district attorneys; 12
magistrates; 86 deputy clerks; two court reporters; one
investigatorial assistant for a district attorney office:
four attorneys and two secretaries for the prehearing
unit of the Court of Appeals; a trial court administra-tor
and secretary for each of ten judicial districts; 10
assistant public defenders, five stenographers and one
investigator for Public Defender offices: an executive
director, investigator, and secretary for the Judicial
Standards Commission (to replace LEAA-funded posi-tions).
In addition, funds were appropriated to raise juror's
pay after five days of jury duty from $8 to $30 per day,
and to increase grand jurors' pay from $8 to $12 per
day. Judicial Department personnel received an ap-proximate
7% cost-of-living salary increase, compar-able
to that provided for other State personnel.
PART II
COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION
AND OPERATIONS
• Historical Development of Court System
• Present Court System
• Organization and Operations in 1978-79
BS^HHHIUIHII
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
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COl'RT SYSTEM
prevent crime." The membership of the Supreme Court
was raised to five, and the selection of the justices (in-cluding
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
judicial office.
Constitutional amendments were introduced in the
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were
reintroduced and approved at the 1961 session. The
Constitutional amendments were approved by popular
vote in 1962, and three years later the General 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
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OE THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
of caseload, was adapted from North Carolina's earlier
General Court, whose full venue extended to all of the
17th Century counties.
After Reorganization
Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has 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. in Address on the History oj 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 oj a Southern State. 1963 Edition.
Sanders, John L. Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute ol Government.
Stevenson. George and Ruby D. Arnold. North Carolina Courts oj Law and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular l
l)73
ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONS AND ROUTES OF APPEAL IN THE
PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
i
Recommendations
from Judicial }•
iStandards Commission'
Original Jurisdiction
All felony cases; civil
cases in excess of $5,000
,
.
,
Decisions of
i most administrative
J
i agencies i
i i
COURT OF
APPEALS
12 Judges
Original Jurisdiction
Probate and estates,
special proceedings
(condemnations, adoptions,
partitions, foreclosures,
etc.)
Clerks of Superior
Court
(100)
DISTRICT
COURTS
127 Judges
Magistrates
(589}
S
®.N
r ,
Decisions ol Utilities
Commission. Industrial
Commission, Insurance
Commissioner, and
N.C. Stale Bar
l_ 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 $300 or less;
small claims $500 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) Appeals in criminal cases where the defendant has been sentenced to death or life imprisonment go directly to the Supreme Court as a
matter of right; in all other criminal cases and in civil cases appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court, in its dis-cretion,
may hear appeals directly from the trial court in cases where delay would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals
docket is unusually full.
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 quite, synonymous. It
may be said that the Judicial Department encompasses
all of the levels of court designated as the General
Court of Justice plus all administrative and ancillary
services within the Judicial Department.
The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal 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
superior courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in
life-imprisonment or death sentence cases (which are
appealed to the Supreme Court), appeal from the 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 $500* 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
administrative agencies is first within the jurisdiction of
the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in
civil cases is to the Court of Appeals.
Administration
The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general
power to supervise and control the proceedings of any
of the other courts of the General Court of Justice"
(G.S. 7A-32(b)).
In addition to this grant of general supervisory
power, the North Carolina General Statutes provide
certain Judicial Department officials with specific
powers and responsibilities for the operation of the
court system. The Supreme Court has the responsibility
for prescribing rules of practice and procedures for the
appellate courts and for prescribing rules for the trial
courts to 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 to $800 effective October 1 , 1979 (G.S. 7A-2 10).
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 both the Director and Assistant
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts; the
Assistant Director also serves as the Chief Justice's
administrative assistant. The schedule of sessions of 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. In most
counties the clerk is also chairman of the county's cal-endar
committee, which sets the civil case calendar. (In
a few districts these committees have been abolished
with the advent of the "trial court administrator" pro-gram
now being tested.) The criminal case calendars in
both superior and district courts are set by the district
attorney of the respective district.
PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES FOR
NORTH CAROLINA TRIAL COURTS
CHIEF JUSTICE
and
SUPREME COURT
(33) Senior Resident
Judges; (100) Clerks
of Superior Court
SUPERIOR
COURTS
?
2
i
Administrative
Office of
the Courts
(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.
: Both the Director and 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.
h 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
supervision of the chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nomi-nees
submitted by the clerk of superior court.
II
THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA1
ChiefJustice
SUSIE SHARP :
Associate Justices
JOSEPH BRANCH'
J. FRANK HUSKINS
J. WILLIAM COPELAND
JAMESG. EXUNLJR.
DAVID M. BRITT
WALTER E. BROCK
Retired Chief Justice
WILLIAM H. BOBBITT
Retired Justices
J. WILLPLESS,JR.
CARLISLE W.HIGGINS
I. BEVERLY LAKE
DAN K.MOORE
Clerk
John R. Morgan
Librarian
Frances H. Hall
'As of 30 June 1979.
2 Retired 3! July 1979.
'Appointed Chief Justice 1 August 1979. Court of Appeals Judge J. Phil Carlton was appointed Associate Justice 2 August 1979.
12
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 Appeals (Utilities Commission general rate-setting
cases, cases involving constitutional questions,
and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court
of Appeals); cases on appeal by right from the superior
courts (criminal cases in which the defendant has been
sentenced to death or to life imprisonment); and cases
in which review has been granted in the Supreme
Court's discretion (cases of significant public interest
and cases involving legal principles of major signifi-cance
to North Carolina jurisprudence). 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 Appel-late
Division is such that the expeditious administra-tion
of justice requires it; most appeals are heard only
after review by the Court of Appeals. Discretionary
review may also be granted when the decision of the
Court of Appeals in a case appears likely to be in con-flict
with a decision of the Supreme Court.
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 o\\ 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
both the Director and Assistant Director of the Admin-istrative
Office of the Courts, who serve at his pleasure.
He also designates a Chief Judge from among the
judges of the Court o\~ Appeals and a Chief District
Court Judge from among the judges in each o( the
State's 33 judicial districts. He assigns superior court
judges, who regularly rotate from district to district, to
the scheduled sessions of superior court in the 100
counties, and is also empowered to transfer district
court judges to other districts for temporary or special-ized
duty. The Chief Justice (or another member of the
Supreme Court designated 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 appoints three o\' the seven
members of the Judicial Standards Commission, a
judge of the Court of Appeals who serves as the Com-mission's
chairman, one superior court judge and one
district court judge.
Operations of the Court, 1978-79
Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the
1978-79 fiscal year ending June 30, 1979 amounted to
$1,173,674, an 'increase of 10.9% over the 1977-78 fiscal
year which had expenditures of $1,057,897. Expendi-tures
for the Supreme Court during 1978-79 constituted
1.9% of all General Fund expenditures for the opera-tion
of the entire Judicial Department during that fiscal
year.
During the J 978 Fall Term and the 1979 Spring
Term a total of 69 cases were brought forward from
previous terms and 188 new cases were docketed, for a
total of 257 cases before the Court during this period.
During these two terms 23 cases were withdrawn or
dismissed, opinions were filed in 162 cases, and at the
end of the 1979 Spring Term 19 cases were carried for-ward
to the following term. During these two terms a
total of 499 petitions were filed and 65 petitions were
allowed. (See Part IV of this Annual Report for more
detail on caseload activity before the Supreme Court.)
13
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA'
ChiefJudge
NAOMI E. MORRIS
Judges
FRANK M. PARKER
R. A.HEDRICK
EARL W.VAUGHN
ROBERT M.MARTIN
EDWARD B.CLARK
GERALD ARNOLD
BURLEY B. MITCHELL. JR.-
JOHN WEBB
RICHARD C. ERWIN
HARRY C. MARTIN
J. PHIL CARLTON'
Retired Chief Judge
RAYMOND B. MALLARD4
Retired Judge
HUGH B. CAMPBELL
Clerk
Francis E. Dail
'AA3sUoIf 3J0U JJUuMnte 1\977I97..
1 Resigned 20 August 1979. Judge Cecil J. Hill was appointed to fill Judge Mitchell's unexpired term and took office on 14 September 1979.
1 Resigned 2 August 1979 upon appointment to the Supreme Court. Judge Hugh A. Wells was appointed to fill Judge Carlton's unexpired
term and took office on 20 August 1979
•Deceased 20 July 1979.
14
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 trial courts. The Court
regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other loca-tions
in the State as authorized by the Supreme Court.
Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regular or
frequent. During 1978-1979, panels of the Court of Ap-peals
held three two-day sessions in Winston-Salem.
Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected by popular
vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for the Court
is designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
and serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the Chief
Justice.
Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the
Chief Judge responsible for assigning members of the
Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each
judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal 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; and one member of
the Court of Appeals, designated by the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court, serves as chairman of the Judi-cial
Standards Commission.
Jurisdiction
The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals
consists of cases appealed from the trial courts. This
Court also hears appeals directly from any final order
or decision of the North Carolina Utilities Commis-sion,
and from certain final orders or decisions of the
North Carolina State Bar and the Commissioner of In-surance.
Effective September 1, 1979, appeals from cer-tain
final orders or decisions of the Property Tax Com-mission
go directly to the Court of Appeals. (Appeals
from the decisions of other administrative agencies lie,
first, within the jurisdiction of the superior courts.)
Effective April 30, 1979, the General Assembly con-ferred
upon the Chief Judge and the six judges next
senior in service on the Court of Appeals jurisdiction to
censure or remove from office a Supreme Court justice.
Such censure or removal case comes before the seven-member
panel of judges upon the non-binding recom-mendation
of the Judicial Standards Commission.
Operations of the Court, 1978-79
Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during
the 1978-79 fiscal year ending June 30, 1979 totalled
$1,485,877, an increase of 20.4% over 1977-78 expendi-tures
of $1,233,765. Much of this increase is attribut-able
to the increase (from nine to twelve) in the number
of Court of Appeals judges. Expenditures for the Court
of Appeals during 1978-79 amounted to 2.4% of all
General Fund expenditures for the operation of the en-tire
Judicial Department during that fiscal year.
During the fiscal year July 1, 1978 through June 30,
1979 the Court of Appeals reported dispositions in a
total of 1,114 cases. A total of 671 published opinions
were filed, of which 230 were in criminal cases and 441
were in civil cases, including appeals from the Insur-ance
Commissioner, the Industrial Commission, and
the Utilities Commission.
Dispositions in a total of 443 cases were reported
without published opinions, of which 280 were criminal
cases and 163 were civil cases.
15
iirtaft
North Carolina State Library
Raleigh
?•'-
>
5
w
H
H
PC
UHZ
Ed
w
cc
b
>
5
>
co
-
-a s_ c E
c c
at
=1
o C
-J o — v.
Cv. u t-o
>
u i-
>>
1—
u ^a o
ex j u_
-5 3
1—
73
o
y
-J
3
u
IS
T3 3 'J '
3 00 'l— w c
<U u-a:
y. 3 w
3
O y,
-5
o
O
O
'—
*-^ y
'J 'J o—
1
C
i—
t/3
o
I— -J
_E
T3
T3 y
-5 b
C
-a
~
E
o
—>-
aJ
'
~~
'-a
6
3
-a
y
>>
E
3
A u i— o
-j _j -z >
'J 'j u c — i— o j= _c ;—
cT: ^ "J j=
--,
_E 3
~
o
-J
17
JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT*
(As of June 30, 1979)
District
1
2
3
4
1 1
12
13
14
DIVISION I
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
R. Michael Bruce, Mount Olive
James D. Llewellyn, Kinston
DIVISION II
Hamilton H. Hobgood, Louisburg
James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh
Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh
A. Pilston Godwin, Jr., Raleigh
Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh
Harry E. Canaday, Benson
E. Maurice Braswell, Fayetteville
Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville
D. G. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville
Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown
Thomas H. Lee, Durham
Anthony M. Brannon, Bahama
John C. Martin, Durham
15A D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington
1 5B F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill
16 Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton
DIVISION III
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 HalH. 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. Rosseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro
DIVISION IV
24 Ronald W. Howell, Marshall
25 Sam J. Ervin, III, Morganton
Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory
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 J. W. Jackson, Hendersonville
30 Lacy H. Thornburg, Webster
* In districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed first
SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT
Ronald Barbee, Greensboro
Robert R. Browning, Greenville
Robert L. Gavin, Pinehurst
William Thomas Graham, Winston-Salem
Harry L. Riddle, Jr., Morganton
David I. Smith, Burlington
Donald L. Smith, Raleigh
Ralph A. Walker, Greensboro
THE SUPERIOR COURTS
North Carolina's superior courts are principally orig-inal-
jurisdiction trial courts which also perform some
appellate functions. In 1978-79 there were 58 "resi-dent"
superior court judges elected to office in the 33
judicial districts, for eight-year terms by Statewide bal-lot,
and eight "special" superior court judges, appoint-ed
to office by the Governor for four-year terms.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under the Consti-tution
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 o\ su-perior
court annually. Many larger counties have
superior court in session about every week in the year.
Jurisdiction
The superior court has original jurisdiction in all fel-ony
cases and in those misdemeanor cases which origi-nate
by grand jury indictment. (Most misdemeanors
are tried first in the district court, from which 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 this court has jurisdiction over ap-peals
from all administrative agencies except the Utili-ties
Commission, Industrial Commission, certain rul-ings
of the Commissioner of Insurance, and the Board
of Bar Examiners of the N.C. State Bar. Appeals from
these agencies lie directly 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 matters and certain spe-cial
proceedings heard first by the clerk o\' superior
court as ex officio judge of probate. Rulings of the
clerk are within the appeallate jurisidiction of the su-perior
court.
Administration
The 100 counties of North Carolina are grouped into
33 judicial districts. Each district has at least one resi-dent
superior court judge who has certain administra-tive
responsibilities for his home district, such as pro-viding
for civil case-calendaring procedures (criminal
case calendars are the responsibility of the district at-torneys).
In districts with more than one resident super-ior
court jduge, the judge senior in service on the super-ior
court bench exercises these supervisory powers.
The 33 judicial districts are divided into four divi-sions
for the rotation of superior court judges. 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 an-other
district. A special superior court judge may be
assigned to hold court in any of the 100 counties. As-signments
of all superior court judges are made by the
Resources
A total of $12,377,669 was expended for operation of
the superior courts during the 1978-79 fiscal year, an
increase of 18.5% over 1977-78 expenditures o\'
$10,443,645. This total includes expenditures lor the
State's district attorneys' offices as well as the salaries
and operating expenses of the 66 superior court judges,
court reporters in the superior courts, and staff sup-port.
The 1978-79 total amounted to 19.9% of the Gen-eral
Fund expenditures for operating expenses o\' the
entire Judicial Department.
1978-79 Caseload
Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of
68,625 cases were filed in the superior courts during the
period July 1, 1978 through June 30, 1979. As the white
bars in the chart below illustrate, superior court case
findings have been increasing: the 1978-79 total is 5.9%
higher than the total of 64,819 cases filed during the
1978 calendar year and 11.3% higher than the 1977 to-tal
of 61,665 cases filed.
A total of 65,91 1 superior court cases were disposed
of during 1978-79. Like filings, dispositions (shown m
the black bars in the first chart on the following page)
have been increasing: the total for the 1978-79 fiscal
year is 6.8% higher than the figure of 61,713 cases dis-posed
of during calendar year 1978 and 10.9% higher
than the 59,434 cases disposed of during calendar year
1977.*
The numbers of superior court cases, both civil and
criminal, which have remained pending at the end o\'
the last five annual reporting periods are illustrated in
the second chart on the following page. A total of
35,172 cases were pending on June 30, 1979, a 2.9% re-duction
from the total pending on December 31, 1978
- 36,214 cases. As the chart illustrates, however, the
general trend over the past four and one-half \ears has
been one of increases in the numbers of superior court
cases pending at year end.
More detailed information on superior court civil
and criminal caseloads is contained in Part IV o\~ this
Report.
*The data in the chart are for calendar years 1975 through 1978 and for fiscal year 1978-79. To facilitate comparisons and depict recent
trends in case filings and dispositions, cases filed or disposed of between July 1 and December 31, 1978, are included m both the figures
for calendar year 1978 and the figures for fiscal year 1978-79.
I')
SUPERIOR COURT CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS, 1975 — 1978-79
SO. 000
70,000
in —
I
<
U
60,000
50,000
40,000
PQ
2
30,000
20,000
10,000
68,625
64,424
61,773 6Hll 61,665
58,789 -— H 59 - 4 -?
SUPERIOR COURT CASES PENDING AT YEAR END, 1975 — 1978-79
40,000
36,214
35,000
a
zq
30,000
c« 25,000
<
20,000
on
gj 1 5,000
DQ
1 0,000
5,000
20
THE SUPERIOR COURTS
Educational Activity
Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Depart-ment
sponsored the following educational activities for
superior court judges in 1978-79:
• the Fall Continuing Education Conference, Octo-ber
19-21 in Asheville, attended by 45 judges;
an orientation session for new judges, December
1-2 at the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill,
attended by five new judges;
the Spring Seminar, March 29-31 in Charlotte, at-tended
by 56 judges; and
the annual meeting of the Conference of Superior
Court Judges, June 17-20 in Asheville, attended by
54 judges.
The Conference of Superior Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1979)
James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh, President
John D. McConnell, Southern Pines,
President-Elect
A. Pilston Godwin, Jr., Raleigh, Vice President
F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill,
Secretary- Treasurer
Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville, and
Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory,
Additional Executive Committee Members
21
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1979)
District
1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City
Grafton G. Beaman, 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
Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton
4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill
E. Alex Erwin, III, Jacksonville
Walter P. Henderson, Trenton
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville
5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington
Charles H. Rice, III, Wilmington
John M. Walker, Wilmington
6 Joseph D. Blythe, Harrellsville
Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids
Robert E. Williford, Lewiston
7 George Britt, Tarboro
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson
Tom H. Matthews, Rocky Mount
Ben H. Neville, Whitakers
8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston
Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont
Herbert W. Hardy, Maury
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro
Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro
9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford
Ben U. Allen, Jr., Henderson
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton
Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford
10 George F. Bason, Raleigh
Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh
George R. Greene, Raleigh
John Hill Parker, Raleigh
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh
1
1
Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield
William Christian, Sanford
K. Edward Greene, Dunn
W. Pope Lyon, Smithfield
District
12 Derb S. Carter, Fayetteville
Sol G. Cherry, Fayetteville
Joseph E. Dupree, Raeford
Charles Lee Guy, Fayetteville
Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville
13 Frank T. Grady, Elizabethtown
J.Wilton Hunt, Sr., Whiteville
William E. Wood, Whiteville
14 J. Milton Read, Jr., 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
16 Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton
B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg
John S. Gardner, Lumberton
Charles G. McLean, Lumberton
17 Leonard H. van Noppen, Danbury
Foy Clark, Mt. Airy
Jerry Cash Martin, Mt. Airy
Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville
18 Robert L. Cecil, High Point
Elreta M. Alexander, Greensboro
Frank A. Campbell, Greensboro
B. Gordon Gentry, Greensboro
John B. Hatfield, Jr., Greensboro
James Samuel Pfaff, Greensboro
Joseph A. Williams, Greensboro
John F. Yeattes, Jr., Greensboro
19A Robert L. Warren, Concord
L. Frank Faggart, Kannapolis
Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury
19B L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro
William H. Heafner, Asheboro
20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro
Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle
Kenneth W. Honeycutt, Monroe
Walter M. Lampley, Rockingham
*The Chief District Court Judge tor each district is listed first.
23
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1979)
District
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
Preston Cornelius, Mooresville
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
26 Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte
P. B. Beachum, Jr., 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
District
27A Lewis Bulwinkle, Gastonia
Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia
J. Ralph Phillips, Gastonia
Donald E. Ramseur, Gastonia
27B A. Max Harris, Ellenboro
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
Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton
30 Robert Leatherwood, III, Bryson City
J. Charles McDarris, Waynesville
John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy
+ The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first.
24
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 126 district court judgeships at the begining of
1978-79; one additional judgeship was created with the
division, effective January 1, 1979, of District 19 into
Districts 19A and 19B. District court judges are elected
to four-year terms by the voters of their respective dis-tricts.
A total of 589 magistrate positions (some part-time)
were authorized in 1978-79. Magistrates are appointed
by the senior resident superior court judge from nomi-nations
submitted by the clerk of superior court of
their county, and 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, involun-tary
commitments and re-commitments to mental hos-pitals,
domestic relations cases, and to general civil
cases where the amount in controversy is $5,000 or less.
Upon the plantiffs request, a civil case where the
amount in controversy is $500* or less may be denomi-nated
a "small claims" case and assigned by the chief
district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magis-trates
are also empowered to try worthless check crimi-nal
cases when the value of the check does not exceed
$300** and the offender has fewer than four previous
worthless check convictions; magistrates may also ac-cept
waivers of appearances and pleas of guilty in cer-tain
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 court judge is appointed for each ju-dicial
district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
from among the elected judges in the respective dis-tricts.
Subject to the Chief Justice's general supervision,
each chief judge exercises administrative supervision
and authority over the operation of the district courts
and magistrates in his district. Each chief judge is re-sponsible
for: scheduling sessions of district court and
assigning judges; supervising the calendaring of civil
cases; assigning matters to magistrates; making ar-rangements
for court reporting and jury trials in civil
cases; and supervising the discharge of the clerical func-tions,
in the district courts, of the clerks of superior
court of the district.
The 33 chief district 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
Increased to $800, effective October 1, 1979(G.S. 7A-2IO).
** Increased to $400, effective October 1, 1979 (G.S. 7A-273).
conference adopts a uniform schedule o\' traffic of-fenses
and fines for their violation for use by magis-trates
and clerks of court in accepting defendants'
waivers of appearance and guilty pleas.
The Conference of Chief District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1979)
J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington, President
John B. Chaffin, Elizabeth City, Vice President
Resources
A total of $12,745,520 was expended for operating
expenses of the district courts in 1978-79, an increase of
14.9% over 1977-78 expenditures of $11,095,953. In-cluded
in the total are expenses of court reporters for
district courts as well as personnel costs of district
court judges and magistrates. The 1978-79 total is
20.5% of the General Fund expenditures for operation
of the entire Judicial Department.
1978-79 Caseload
Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of
1,432,067 cases were filed in the district courts from
July I, 1978 through June 30, 1979. As the black bars
in the first chart on the following page illustrate, dis-trict
court case filings have varied from year to year in
the last four and one-half years, with the overall trend
being one of gradual increase. The 1978-79 total of
1,432,067 cases filed is less than one percent fewer than
the total of 1,440,378 cases filed during the 1978 calen-dar
year, but almost seven percent more than the 1975
filings total of 1,340,556 cases.
A total of 1,402,518 district court cases were dis-posed
of during 1978-79. Figures for total dispositions
over the last four and one-half years, illustrated by the
white bars in the chart following, have varied up and
.down with the variations in case filings. The total of
1,402,518 cases disposed of during 1978-79 is less than
one percent below the total of 1,407,360 cases disposed
of during the 1978 calendar year, but about six percent
above the 1975 dispositions total of 1,322,359 cases.
The numbers of district court cases, both civil and
criminal, which remained pending at the end of the last
five annual reporting periods are shown in the second
chart on the following page. A total of 244,922 cases
were pending on June 30, 1979, a slight increase (about
one percent) over the 242,520 cases pending as of De-cember
31, 1978.
More detailed information on district court civil and
criminal caseloads is contained in Part IV of this
Report.
25
DISTRICT COURT CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITION, 1975 — 1978-79*
1,600,000
1 ,400,000
1,200,000
•jr.
1 ,000,000
ir.
<u
800,000
C 600,000
as 400,000
OQ
7
Z
200,000
(i
440.378
1,340,556
.360 1.432.067
| 4025|8
Filings Dispositions
DISTRICT COURT CASES PENDING AT YEAR END, 1975 — 1978-79
275,000
250,000
225,000
200,000
175,000
1 50,000
125,000
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
242,520 244,922
Dec. 31,
1975
Dec. 31
1976
Dec. 31
1977
Dec. 31
1978
June 10,
1979
*The data in this chart arc lor calendar years 1975 through 1978 and lor fiscal year 1978-79. To facilitate comparisons and depicl recent
trends in case filings and dispositions, cases Hied or disposed of between Jul) I and December 31, 1978, are included in both the figures lor
calendar year 1978 and the figures for fiscal year 1978-79.
Juvenile cases and district court hearings relating to involuntary commitments or recommitments to mental hospitals are not included in
these figures; these matters were not reported to AOC by case-numbers and filing and disposition dates during 1978-79. Some data on
these proceedings are available: see Section 3 of Part IV (juvenile cases) and "Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents" in Part
III (commitment and recommitment hearings).
26
THE DISTRICT COURTS
Educational Activity
Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Depart-ment
sponsored the following educational activities for
district court judges in 1978-79:
• a conference on juveniles and learning disabilities,
September 15-16 in Burlington, attended by 32
judges;
• the district judges' Fall Seminar, October 19-21 in
Asheville, attended by 87 judges;
• three orientation sessions for new judges, January
5-6, January 19-20 and February 16-17 at the Insti-tute
of Government in Chapel Hill, attended by a
total of 12 new judges and appointees;
• a conference on commitment of juveniles to train-ing
schools, March 30-31 in Durham, attended by
43 judges; and
• the Summer Seminar o[ the Association of District
Court Judges, June 17-20 in Charlotte, attended by
95 judges.
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 1978-79. The first (July 17-21
and July 31-August 4) was attended by 24 new magis-trates;
the second (February 5-9 and February 12-16)
was attended by 52 new magistrates.
The Judicial Department also sponsored:
• the Fall Meeting of the Magistrates Association,
October 16-18 in Asheville, attended by 102 magis-trates;
• three sessions of a refresher course, October 23 in
Chapel Hill (86 magistrates), October 30 in Green-ville
(38 magistrates), and November 10 in
Fayetteville (30 magistrates); and
• the Spring Meeting of the Magistrates Association,
May 14-16 in Raleigh, attended by 70 magistrates.
The Association of District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1978)
John M. Walker, Wilmington, President
Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton, Vice President
Robert J. Leatherwood, III, Bryson City,
Secretary- Treasurer
Hubert E. Olive, Lexington, and
Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton,
Additional Executive Committee Members
21
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
(As of June 30, 1979)
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 JOHN W.TWISDALE, Smithfield
12 EDWARD W.GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville
13 LEE J. GREER, Whiteville
14 DAN K. EDWARDS, JR.. Durham
ISA HERBERT F. PIERCE, Graham
I5B 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
28
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 a four-year term.
Duties
The district attorney represents the State in all crimi-nal
actions brought in the superior and district courts
in his district. In addition to his prosecutorial func-tions,
the district attorney is responsible for calendar-ing
criminal cases for trial.
Resources
Each district attorney is authorized to employ, on a
full-time basis, the number of assistant district attor-neys
specified by statute for his district. As of June 30,
1979, a total of 179 assistant district attorneys were au-thorized
for the 33 districts, 173 of them paid with
State funds and six with federal LEAA funds in three
"career criminal prosecution units" in Districts 10, 12
and 26. Including LEAA-funded personnel, the district
attorney of District 26 (Mecklenburg County) had the
largest staff - 17 assistants; the smallest staffs were in
Districts 23 and 24 — two assistant district attorneys in
each.
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 18 of the 33 dis-tricts
is empowered to employ an investigative assist-ant,
to aid in the investigation of cases preparatory to
trial.
1978-1979 Caseload
A total of 56,591 criminal cases were filed in superior
courts from July 1, 1978 through June 30, 1979; 32,129
of these cases were felonies and 24,462 were misde-meanors
on appeal from district courts. Combined with
the 17,894 cases pending on July 1, 1978, the district at-torneys
1 superior court caseload for the year totalled
74,485 cases. Of these a total of 54,587 cases (30,979
felonies and 23,608 misdemeanor appeals) were dis-posed
of, 73.3% of the caseload. Still pending in superi-or
courts on June 30, 1979 were 19,898 cases (11,734
felonies and 8,164 misdemeanor appeals), which is an
increase of 1 1.2% over the number pending on July 1,
1978.
In district courts, a total of 1,152,519 criminal cases
were filed during 1978-79 (796,227 motor vehicle cases
and 356,292 other criminal cases). A total of 136.288
cases were pending as of July 1, 1978; this figure, com-bined
with cases filed during the year, totalled
1,288,807 criminal cases to be handled in district court.
This cannot be regarded as the district attorneys" "case-load,"
however, for many district court criminal cases
are disposed of by defendant's waiver of appearance
and plea ol~ guilty before a magistrate or clerk of su-perior
court staff, and these cases do not require the
district attorneys' attention. A total of 522,452 cases
were disposed of by waiver in 1978-79, and an addi-tional
24,204 cases which were filed in 1978-79 were
disposed of by waiver after June 30, 1979; when these
are excluded, the district attorneys' district court case-load
for the year totalled 742,151 cases. Of these,
612,187 were disposed of, 82.5% of the caseload. As of
June 30, 1979, 154,168 criminal cases were pending in
the district courts of the State, an increase of 13.1%
over the number pending on July 1, 1978.
Additional information on the district attorneys' su-perior
court and district court caseloads is included in
Sections 2 and 3, respectively, of Part IV of this Report.
29
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
Educational Activity
Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Depart-ment
sponsored the following educational activities for
district attorneys and their staffs in 1978-79:
• a conference for administrative assistants, August
29-31 at the Institute of Government in Chapel
Hill, attended by 20 administrative assistants, one
investigative assistant, and one secretary;
• an orientation session for new prosecutors, Octo-ber
17-20 at the Institute of Government in Chapel
Hill, attended by 24 new assistant district attor-neys,
one administrative assistant, and one investi-gative
assistant;
the Fall Conference of the District Attorneys As-sociation,
October 26-28 in Chapel Hill, attended
by 11 district attorneys and 71 assistant district
attorneys;
a seminar on homicide for prosecutors, March
19-23 in Chapel Hill, attended by 16 district attor-neys,
58 assistant district attorneys, and two inves-tigative
assistants; and
the June Conference of the District Attorneys As-sociation,
June 17-20 near Charlotte, attended by
16 district attorneys, 76 assistant district attorneys,
and one administrative assistant.
The District Attorneys Association
(Officers as of June 30, 1979)
Peter S. Gilchrist, Charlotte, President
Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City, Vice President
Joe Freeman Britt, Lumberton,
Vice President, Legislative Affairs
D. Keith Teague, Elizabeth City,
Secretary- Treasurer
M)
CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT
(As of June 30, 1979)
COUNTY CLERK OF COURT COUNTY
Alamance Louise B. Wilson Johnston
Alexander Martha J. Adams Jones
Alleghany Joan B. Atwood Lee
Anson R. Frank Hightower Lenoir
Ashe Virginia W. Johnson Lincoln
Avery Billy J. Vance Macon
Beaufort Bessie J. Cherry Madison
Bertie Thomas S. Speight Martin
Bladen Smithy S. Harris McDowell
Brunswick K. Gregory Bellamy Mecklenburg
Buncombe J. Ray Elingburg Mitchell
Burke Major A. Joines Montgomery
Cabarrus Estus B. White Moore
Caldwell Mary Hood Thompson Nash
Camden Caroline G. Halstead New Hanover
Carteret Mary Austin Northampton
Caswell J. P. Moore Onslow
Catawba Eunice W. Mauney Orange
Chatham Janice Oldham Pamlico
Cherokee Rose Mary Crooke Pasquotank
Chowan Lena M. Leary Pender
Clay Ralph A. Allison Perquimans
Cleveland Ruth S. Dedmon Person
Columbus Lacy R. Thompson Pitt
Craven Dorothy Pate Polk
Cumberland George T. Griffin Randolph
Currituck Wiley B. Elliot Richmond
Dare C. S. Meekins Robeson
Davidson Hugh Shepherd Rockingham
Davie Delores C. Jordan Rowan
Duplin John A. Johnson Rutherford
Durham James Leo Carr Sampson
Edgecombe Curtis Weaver Scotland
Forsyth A. E. Blackburn Stanly
Franklin RalphS. Knott Stokes
Gaston Betty B. Jenkins Surry
Gates Tobe Daniels, Jr. Swain
Graham O. W. Hooper, Jr. Transylvania
Granville Mary Ruth C. Nelms Tyrrell
Greene Cleo W. McKeel Union
Guilford Joseph E. Slate, Jr. Vance
Halifax J. C. Taylor Wake
Harnett Georgia Lee Brown Warren
Haywood William G. Henry Washington
Henderson Thomas H. Thompson Watauga
Hertford Richard T. Vann Wayne
Hoke Juanita Edmund Wilkes
Hyde W. Allen Credle Wilson
Iredell Carl G. Smith Yadkin
Jackson Frank Watson, Jr. Yancey
CLERK OF COURT
Will R. Crocker
Ronald H. Metts
Sion H.Kelly
M. E. Creech
Nellie L. Bess
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
David J. 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
W. A. Boone, Jr.
Harold J. Long
Arnold E. Higgins
31
THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT
A Clerk of Superior Court for each county 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 administrative functions for both the su-perior
and district courts of his county.
Jurisdiction
The original jurisdiction of the clerk of the superior
court includes the probate of wills and administration
of decedents' estates. It also includes such "special pro-ceedings"
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 is-sue
search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas,
and other process necessary to execute the judgments
entered in the superior and district courts of his county.
For certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is
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 of the 100 counties of North Carolina, civil
case trial calendars are set by calendar committees
chaired by the clerk of superior court. (Criminal case
trial calendars are set by the district attorney.) In
1978-79 these committees had been replaced by "trial
court administrators" in three judicial districts (Dis-tricts
10, 22 and 28) on an experimental basis. Working
under the supervision of the senior resident superior
court judges these administrators had day-to-day re-sponsibility
for the calendaring of superior court civil
cases. The 1979 General Assembly provided funds for
continued experimentation with this method of calen-dar
administration in 10 of the State's 33 judidicial dis-tricts.
Resources
A total of $21,457,921 was expended in 1978-79 for
operation of the 100 clerks of superior court offices, an
increase of 11.6% over 1977-78 expenditures of
$19,224,801. Included in the total were expenditures for
jurors' and witnesses' 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 1978-79 total made up 34.5% of
General Fund expenditures for operating expenses of
the entire Judicial Department.
1978-79 Caseload
Filings of estates cases totalled 32,926 cases in
1978-79, an increase of less than one percent over the
number (32,602 cases) filed in the 1978 calendar year;
filings have increased 3.7% since the 1977 calendar year
when 31,742 estates cases were filed. A total of 31,378
estates cases were disposed of in 1978-79, up 1.7% over
dispositions in 1978 (30,841 cases) and 7.4%. over dispo-sitions
in 1977 (29,222 cases). Although rising at a
slower rate, filings of estates cases continue to out-number
dispositions and the number of cases pending
rose from 47,467 on December 31, 1978, to 48,560 on
June 30, 1979 — an increase of 2.3%.
There were 27,799 special proceedings filed in
1978-79, an increase of 2.7% over the 1978 calendar
year total of 27,078; compared to the 1977 filings total
(27,156 cases), the 1978-79 total is an increase of 2.4%.
Dispositions of special proceedings totalled 26,717
cases in 1978-79, a decrease of two percent from the
1978 calendar year total of 27,266 cases and of less
than one percent from the 1977 total of 26,888 cases.
There were 20,196 special proceedings pending before
the clerks as of June 30, 1979, an increase of 1.9%> over
the total (19,815 cases) pending on December 31, 1978.
More detailed information on the clerks' estates and
special proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of
this Report.
33
THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT
Educational Activity
Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Depart-ment
sponsored the following educational activities for
clerks of superior court in 1978-79:
• the Annual Conference of the Association of
Clerks of Superior Court, July 26-28 in Nags
Head, attended by 68 clerks;
the Annual Conference of the Association of As-sistant
and Deputy Clerks of Superior Court. July
19-21 in Charlotte, attended by 210 assistant and
deputy clerks; and
an orientation training session for recently elected
and appointed clerks of superior court. January
8-12 in Asheboro, attended by 25 new clerks.
Association of Clerks of Superior Court
(Officers as of June 30, 1979)
Ruth B. Williams, McDowell County, President
A. E. Blackburn, Forsyth County,
First Vice President
Ben G. Floyd, Jr., Robeson County,
Second Vice President
W. A. Boone, Jr., Wilson County, Secretary
Louise B. Wilson, Alamance County, Treasurer
Major Joines, Burke County
Shelton Jordon, Wayne County, and
Sion H. Kelly, Lee County (ex officio).
Additional Executive Committee Members
34
PUBLIC DEFENDERS
In 1978-79 there were five public defenders in North
Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 12, 18, 26, 27A and
28; these officials and their assistants provide legal
representation for persons in designated categories who
are determined to be indigent. The public defender for
District 28 is appointed 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 respec-tive
district bar. 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 au-thorized
by the Administrative 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 extradic-tion
to another state; a proceeding alleging mental ill-ness
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 neglect.
Most cases of State-paid representation of indigents
in these five districts are handled by the public defend-ers.
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, appointed by
the court and paid a fee by the State for his legal ser-vices.
In the other 28 districts the assigned private
counsel system is the only one used.
Resources
A total of SI, 149, 780 was expended for the operation
of the five public defenders' offices in 1978-79, an in-crease
of 11.5% over 1977-78 expenditures of
$1,031,400. The 1978-79 total is 1.8% of all General
Fund expenditures for the operating expenses of the en-tire
Judicial Department.
1978-79 Caseload
The five public defenders' offices handled a total of
10,972 cases, including both trials and appeals, in
1978-79. This represents an increase of 3.2%- over the
10,630 cases handled by these offices during the
1977-78 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 Depart-ment
sponsored the following educational activities for
public defenders in 1978-79:
• a Fall training session, October 11-13 at the Insti-tute
of Government in Chapel Hill, attended by
the five public defenders and 21 assistant defend-ers;
and
• the Public Defenders Association Spring Confer-ence,
April 25-27 at the Institute of Government in
Chapel Hill, attended by the five public defenders
and 21 assistant public defenders.
PUBLIC DEFENDERS
(As of June 30, 1979)
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, 1979)
Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville, President
Lawrence B. Langston, Gastonia, Vice President
Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte, Secretary
Deno G. Economous, Greensboro, Treasurer
35
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
The Director of the Administrative Office of the
Courts and his staff perform a variety of functions for
the Judicial Department; these are enumerated in Arti-cle
29 of Chapter 7A of the North Carolina General
Statutes. The Director is appointed by the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court and serves at his pleasure, as
does the Assistant Director, who is specifically charged
with assisting the Chief Justice in making assignments
of superior court judges and assisting the Supreme
Court in preparing calendars of superior court trial ses-sions,
as well as performing other functions assigned by
the Chief Justice and the Director of AOC.
A total of $1,361,382 was expended from the State's
General Fund for operating expense of AOC during
1978-79, an increase of 15.5% over 1977-78 expendi-tures
of $1,178,529. The 1978-79 total is 2.1%- of Gener-al
Fund expenditures for operation of the entire Judi-cial
Department.
In addition to the Director and Assistant Director,
there are seven component parts of AOC, as illustrated
in the chart below. Their respective assignments and
activities in 1978-79 are summarized in the following
pages.
ORGANIZATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
(As of June 30, 1979)
CHIEF JUSTICE
of the
SUPREME COURT
COUNSEL
DIRECTOR OF
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE OF THE
COURTS
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
CLERKS'
SERVICES
DIVISION
FISCAL
MANAGEMENT
DIVISION
JUVENILE
SERVICES
DIVISION
PERSONNEL
DIVISION
RESEARCH
& PLANNING
DIVISION
SYSTEMS
DIVISION
)6
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
Clerks' Services Division
The Clerks' Services Division monitors the record-keeping
procedures in the clerks' offices located in the
100 counties, develops recommendations for improved
office operations, and provides special assistance to
individual offices where that is required from time to
time. This Division reviews issues of staffing adequacy
and personnel job descriptions for the clerks' offices,
and participates in training activities involving clerk
personnel. Liaison is maintained with other agencies or
governmental offices which have special working rela-tionships
with the clerks' offices: the Department of
Archives and History on records management and re-tention,
the Division of Motor Vehicles on traffic case
reports, and county governments on space require-ments
in clerks' offices. Following each legislative ses-sion,
the Division reviews new legislation affecting the
clerks' offices and participates in disseminating infor-mation
on changes in the laws and in developing any
record-keeping procedures required by new legislation.
During the past year, this Division participated in
the annual conference of the clerks of superior court
and the annual conference of assistant and deputy
clerks. In addition, the Division planned and conduct-ed
a four-day special training conference for newly
elected or appointed clerks of superior court.
Office of Counsel
The Counsel for the Administrative Office of the
Courts provides legal advice for AOC staff as well as
for other administrative officials in the Judicial Depart-ment,
particularly the clerks of superior court. Another
major area of responsibility is the development (and
up-dating) of the variety of forms used in the trial
courts for instituting, processing and disposing of
cases. A third category of responsibility consists of par-ticipation
in a variety of educational or training activity
for personnel of the Judicial Department: presentations
at annual conferences of the clerks of court, at confer-ences
of assistant and deputy clerks of court, and at
specialized group meetings scheduled throughout the
year.
During the 1978-79 fiscal year requests for legal ad-vice
averaged 18 to 20 a day. Most of these requests
were from clerks' offices. At the present time, more
than 250 forms have been developed and approved by
the Administrative Office of the Courts for use in pro-cessing
the large variety of cases in the trial courts.
Each legislative session produces changes in the laws
which in turn require changes in existing forms or the
development of new forms.
Fiscal Management Division
This Division has responsibility for the management
of the fiscal affairs of the Judicial Department, includ-ing
budgeting, disbursing and the related accounting,
auditing and reporting activity. In addition, the Divi-sion
has responsibility for purchasing and printing, and
for warehousing and distribution of supplies for the
Judicial Department.
The Division formulates policy and procedures for
the fiscal operations of the Judicial Department and
supervises their administration. A significant portion of
these functions pertain to the fiscal operations of the
offices of the clerks of superior court located in each of
the 100 counties of the State. A uniform accounting
system is prescribed for the clerks' offices.
The clerks' offices receive, account for and disburse
court costs, fees, fines and bond forfeitures, as well as a
variety of other receipts (judgment payments, estate
settlements, trusts) which are paid into the clerks' of-fices
as a result of court actions and proceedings.
During the 1978-79 fiscal year, expenditures for the
operation of the Judicial Department totalled
$64,830,830. During the same year the Department's
total receipts of court costs, fees, fines and forfeitures
amounted to $48,060,916. In accord with applicable
law, these receipts were disbursed as follows:
$21,246,744 remitted to the State Treasurer for the
State's General Fund and $2,518,410 for the Law En-forcement
Officers' Retirement Fund; $23,488,366 dis-bursed
to the several counties of the State: and
$807,396 disbursed to municipalities throughout the
State.
Juvenile Services Division
This Division administers the Statewide juvenile
court counselor program for children alleged or adjudi-cated
to be delinquent or undisciplined. Services in-clude
intake (pre-hearing studies of children alleged to
be delinquent or undisciplined); probation (supervision
within the community for those adjudicated to be de-linquent
or undisciplined and who have not been com-mitted
to training school): and aftercare (supervision
within the community for children conditionally re-leased
from the training schools). The services are ad-ministered
locally by court counselors in each judicial
district, with each district having a chief court coun-selor
in charge of the Division's functions in the
district.
Court counselors worked with 20,743 intake cases
from July 1, 1978 to June 30, 1979, diverting 9,372
cases from the juvenile courts. Of those cases diverted.
37
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
5,236 were resolved without referrals and 4,136 cases
were referred to other resources based in the communi-ties,
such as mental health clinics and county depart-ments
of social services. During the year 9,332 cases
were added to the court counselors' probation case-loads,
with the daily average State caseload being
6,378.
Prior to July 1, 1978, a so-called "status offender" (a
child found to have violated a law applicable only to
children) who was put on probation and later found to
have violated the conditions of his probation, could be
committed to a training school as a "delinquent" juve-nile.
By restricting the definition of "delinquent" to
juveniles who have committed criminal offenses, the
1977 General Assembly in effect prohibited the incar-ceration
of status offenders in North Carolina. Al-though
the long-term effects of this change have yet to
be determined, an immediate impact on the caseload of
the Juvenile Services Division was a significant de-crease
in the number of children (approximately 1,164)
placed on probation for status offenses between July 1,
1978 and June 30, 1979.
A major accomplishment of the Division during
1978-79 was the establishment of minimum service de-livery
standards for the Division. Delivery of services in
each judicial district is now measured by these stand-ards
under a program of periodic reviews and evalua-tion.
Training continued to receive major emphasis during
the year, with the following activities:
• three orientation sessions (October 1978, March
1979, and June 1979) for new court counselors;
• a required course in seven sessions for court
counselors, counselor trainees, intake counselors
and district supervisors, with a total of 226 persons
attending;
• a required course for chief court counselors and
administrative personnel, attended by 35 persons;
• an optional course in two sessions for secretaries
who deal regularly with troubled adolescents, at-tended
by 36 secretaries;
• 12 separate special interest courses in counseling
techniques and theories, presented as optional
training in a total of 23 sessions across the State,
with a total attendance of 399;
• a conference on juveniles with learning disabilities,
attended by 32 district court judges; and
• a conference on the juvenile commitment order
and training schools, attended by 43 district court
judges.
In addition, tuition and registration fees were paid
for 150 Juvenile Services Division personnel, to attend
college courses and educational workshops and confer-ences.
During May of 1979 an independent evaluation of
the Division's training activities was conducted by the
Training Director of the National Council of Juvenile
and Family Court Judges.
Personnel Division
This Division provides the personnel administration
and analysis of staffing requirements for the Judicial
Department, which has approximately 3300 employees.
The Division also has responsibility for the assignment
of court reporters for the trial courts.
In addition to administering its on-going services and
programs, the Division gave particular attention to the
following new matters during the 1978-79 fiscal year:
• Changes in salary administration policy were de-veloped
and approved for implementation begin-ning
July 1, 1979, with a principal new feature
being provision that supervisors could consider a
half-step merit increment as well as a full-step
increment. Previously, an employee had to be ap-proved
for either a full-step increment or no merit
increment.
• A new appointments policy for the Judicial De-partment
became effective July 1, 1978, providing
for a probationary appointment period for new
employees.
• Comprehensive employee relations policies and
procedures were adopted in April 1978 for person-nel
of the Administrative Office of the Courts,
with the Personnel Administrator acting as the
first level of appeal from an employee's division.
Since the inception of this program, 13 such ap-peals
have been heard and acted upon by the Per-sonnel
Administrator.
• Comprehensive classification and pay studies were
conducted in the offices of 10 clerks of superior
court, including two of the largest clerks' offices
(Forsyth and Mecklenburg Counties). Planning
and scheduling of similar studies of other clerks'
offices for the coming year was accomplished.
• Studies were begun on the possible adoption of a
Service Awards Program for Judicial Department
employees.
Research and Planning Division
This Division has responsibility for conducting re-search
and preparing reports and papers on problems
or issues relevant to the courts of North Carolina. The
Division provides the staff for the North Carolina Judi-cial
Planning Committee. (This Committee, established
by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in 1977, con-siders
problems or issues affecting the operation of the
38
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
State's courts and has a special role in the allocation of
LEAA funds available to the court system.) In addi-tion,
the Division has responsibilities for the LEAA
grants management functions for the Judicial Depart-ment,
and for the compilation, printing and distribu-tion
of the Annual Reports of the Administrative Of-fice
of the Courts.
During the 1978-79 fiscal year the Division prepared
papers and made presentations to the Judicial Planning
Committee on coordination of witness attendance at
criminal trials; on the comparative need for additional
district court judges in certain judicial districts; on a
"trial court administrator" pilot project operation in
three judicial districts; on retirement of magistrates;
and on the variety of proposals considered for LEAA
funding during the 1979-80 fiscal year.
In September 1978 a two-volume report was com-pleted
and released on North Carolina trial court facili-ties
in the 100 counties of the State. This was the cul-mination
of a major three-year study project of the
North Carolina State University School of Design, pur-suant
to a contract with the Administrative Office of
the Courts. Division staff carried out planning func-tions
and contract administration for this project, col-lected
significant portions of the data for the study,
drafted portions of the report, and provided editorial
review and approval on behalf of the Administrative
Office of the Courts.
During the year the Director of the Division made a
study and analysis of the law of homicide in North
Carolina as affected by recent decisions of the United
State Supreme Court and prepared a special report on
this subject for the North Carolina Judicial Council.
The LEAA Grants Management Section was in-volved
in the on-going administration of 24 LEAA-funded
projects during the year. Applications for seven
projects were prepared and approved for LEAA fund-ing
by the Governor's Crime Commission (the State
Planning Agency for LEAA purposes). In addition, the
LEAA Grants Manager participated with representa-tives
of the Governor's Crime Commission in a total of
13 monitoring visits for review of various Judicial
Department projects supported by LEAA funds.
Systems Division
This Division has the responsibility for development
and implementation of an automated information sys-tem
for the Judicial Department.
The Division also handles the data entry and elec-tronic
processing of case data which is reported weekly
(on manually completed forms) by the clerks of superi-or
court in the 100 counties to the Administrative
Office of the Courts. In addition, the Division handles
the data entry and electronic processing of manually
reported information on juvenile services. During the
fiscal year more than three million records of such in-formation
were processed, providing on a periodic
basis numerous computer-produced reports. (The sys-tem
of manually reported data will be phased out as
the Judicial Department's automated information sys-tem
is implemented).
Computer equipment was procured for the imple-mentation
of the "criminal component" of the court
information system for an initial twelve-county pilot
region which includes Judicial Districts 7, 9, 10 and 1 1;
and computer programming for the criminal compo-nent
was developed and tested.
Telecommunication lines were installed connecting
the first two counties (Franklin and Vance) with the
AOC computer facilities, and terminals and printers
were installed in both of these counties.
Training of clerk office personnel in the operation of
the new automated system was begun in Franklin and
Vance counties, with the implementation of the "crimi-nal
component" of the system expected in the near
future.
39
THE JUDICIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
(Members as of June 30, 1979)**
Associate Justice J. Frank Huskins, Raleigh, Chairman
Magistrate C. E. Baker, Holly Springs
District Court Judge Thomas D. Cooper, Jr., Burling-
Administrative Officer o( the Courts Bert M. Monta-gue,
Raleigh
ton
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., Lum-berton
Chief Court of Appeals Judge Naomi E. Morris,
Raleigh
President of the N.C. State Bar Grady B. Scott, Gas-tonia
President of the N.C. Bar Association Clarence
Walker, Charlotte
Senator Willis P. Whichard, Durham
'All members serve at the pleasure of the Supreme Court.
THE JUDICIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE IN 1978-79
The North Carolina Judicial Planning Committee
was appointed by the Supreme Court in 1977. The
Committee considers problems affecting the operation
of the State's courts, areas in need of improvement,
and issues relevant to the court system as a whole. In
addition, the Committee plays a special role in the allo-cation
of LEAA funds available to the court system.
Staff assistance for the Committee is provided by the
Research and Planning Division of the Administrative
Office of the Courts.
During the 1978-79 fiscal year the Judicial Planning
Committee considered reports on:
(1) the special study of North Carolina courthouses
and other judicial facilities (published in Septem-ber,
1978);
(2) the coordination of attendance of witnesses at
criminal trials in the several prosecutorial dis-tricts
throughout the State;
(3) the comparative need for additional district court
judges in the first and 29th judicial districts;
(4) the pilot-project "trial-court administrator' 1 pro-gram
operating in the 10th, 22nd and 28th judi-cial
districts.
The Judicial Planning Committee also considered
proposals for LEAA program funds for federal fiscal
year 1979-80, and concluded that the following listed
allocations of LEAA funds should be made:
(1) $996,833 for continued development and imple-mentation
of an electronic data processing sys-tem
for North Carolina courts;
(2) $62,825 for witness-attendance coordination pro-jects
in several district attorneys' offices;
(3) $69,000 for development and distribution oi a
reference manual for clerk of superior court staff;
(4) $7,100 for operating expenses for the Orange
County Dispute Settlement Center;
(5) $98,075 for specialized personnel in the Office of
the Attorney General to handle criminal case
appeals;
(6) $157,000 for education and training of Judicial
Department personnel working in the juvenile
justice area; and
(7) $25,950 for preparation and publication of a re-vised
version of Rules of Procedure for Children
in the District Court and a field manual for per-sonnel
of the Juvenile Services Division.
With the exception of some reduction in the amount
for juvenile justice education and training, the Commit-tee's
recommendations were adopted by the Governor's
Crime Commission contingent upon the availability of
federal funds in the anticipated amounts.*
*These allocations were subsequently reduced by approximately 27% after a reduction, by the Congress, in the funds available under the
LEAA program.
41
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
Appointed by the Chief Justice
Associate Justice James G. Exum, Jr., Raleigh
Chairman
Members as of June 30, 1979)
Appointed by the Lieutenant Governor
Senator Julian R. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids
Senator Robert S. Swain, Asheville
Superior Court Judge Henry A. McKinnon,
Lumberton
Superior Court Judge Lacy Thornburg, Webster
Chief District Court Judge J. Milton Read, Jr.,
Durham
District Attorney William Griffin, Jr., Williamston
District Attorney James E. Roberts, Concord
Appointed by the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Judge Earl W. Vaughn, Raleigh
Appointed by the Governor
Gerald W. Hayes, Jr., Dunn
Robert C. Hunter, Marion
Appointed by the Speaker of the House
Representative H. Parks Helms, Charlotte
Representative James F. Morgan, High Point
Appointed by the Attorney General
R. Bruce White, Jr., Deputy Attorney General,
Raleigh
Appointed by the Council of the N. C. State Bar
W. Marion Allen, Elkin
Leon Corbett, Burgaw
Ann H. Phillips, Asheville
Ralph H. Ramsey, Jr., Brevard
Dallas A. Cameron, Jr., Assistant Director of the Administrative
Office of the Courts, Executive Secretary
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL IN 1978-79
The Judicial Council has been in continuous exist-ence
since it was established by the 1949 General As-sembly.
Statutory provisions relating to membership,
terms of office, and the duties of the Council are set
out in Article 31 of Chapter 7A of the General Stat-utes.
Culminating work which started in 1978, the Judicial
Council transmitted its report to the Governor and the
General Assembly in March, 1979. The Council recom-mends
enactment of bills providing:
(1) for addition of an aggravating circumstance to
the existing statutory list which is considered in
capital cases;
(2) for prohibition of conviction as an accessory be-fore
the fact on an indictment which charged the
defendant with the principal felony;
(3) that punishment for burglary would be imprison-ment
for not less than ten years or more than
life;
(4) for procedure for the selection of alternate
jurors;
(5) for revision of Article 6, Chapter 14 of the North
Carolina General Statutes relating to homicide;
(6) for extension of the time of coverage of a bail
bond; and
(7) for elimination of the use of a jury to determine
sentences in capital cases where there is no aggra-vating
circumstance.
The first four of the above listed proposals were en-acted
by the 1979 General Assembly. The latter three
proposals listed above were held over for further con-sideration
during the 1980 session of the General As-sembly.
43
THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION
(Members as of June 30, 1979)
Appointed by the Chief Justice
Court of Appeals Judge Edward B. Clark, Raleigh, Chairman
Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro
District Court Judge L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro
Appointed by the Governor
Marvin B. Koonce, Jr., Raleigh
Susan Whittington, Wilkesboro
Appointed by the Council of the N.C. State Bar
Jerome B. Clark, Jr., Fayetteville
Robert G. Sanders, Charlotte
Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary
44
THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION
July 1, 1978-June 30, 1979
The Judicial Standards Commission was established
by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional
amendment approved by the voters at the general elec-tion
in November, 1972.
Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Su-preme
Court may censure or remove any judge for wil-ful
misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure to
perform his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction
of a crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct preju-dicial
to the administration of justice that brings the ju-dicial
office into disrepute. In addition, upon recom-mendation
of the Commission, the Supreme Court may
remove any judge for mental or physical incapacity
interfering with the performance of his duties, which is,
or is likely to become, permanent.
Where a recommendation for censure or removal in-volves
a justice of the Supreme Court, the recommen-dation
and supporting record is filed with the Court of
Appeals which has and proceeds under the same au-thority
for censure or removal of a judge. Such a pro-ceeding
would be heard by the Chief Judge of the
Court of Appeals and the six judges senior in service,
excluding the Court of Appeals judge who by law
serves as the Chairman of the Judicial Standards Com-mission.
This procedure for the censure or removal of a
justice of the Supreme Court became effective as of 30
April 1979. (1979 Session Laws, c. 486).
In addition to a recommendation of censure or re-moval,
the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary
measure known as a reprimand. The reprimand is a
mechanism administratively developed for dealing with
inquiries where the conduct involved does not warrant
censure or removal, but where some action is justified.
Since the establishment of the Judicial Standards Com-mission
in 1973, reprimands have been issued in nine
inquiries.
During the 1 July 1978 - 30 June 1979 fiscal year, the
Judicial Standards Commission met on the following
dates: 25 August 1978, 27 October 1978, 26 January
1979, 23 March 1979, and 29 June 1979.
A complaint or other information against a judge,
whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the
Commission acting on its own motion, is designated as
an "Inquiry Concerning a Judge." Three such inquiries
were pending as of 1 July 1978, and 65 inquiries were
filed during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a
total workload of 68 inquiries.
During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of
66 inquiries and two inquiries remained pending at the
end of the fiscal year. The determinations of the Com-mission
with regard to the 66 inquiries disposed of dur-ing
the fiscal year were as follows:
(1) 45 inquiries were determined to involve subject
matter not within the Commission's jurisdiction;
(2) 10 inquiries were determined to involve subject
matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but
not warranting further proceedings;
(3) four inquiries were determined to warrant no
further action following receipt of additional in-formation
requested in order to clarify the nature
of the inquiry;
(4) five inquiries were determined to warrant no
further action following completion of prelimi-nary
investigations; and
(5) two inquiries were determined to warrant the is-suance
of a reprimand.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina issued opin-ions
during the 1 July 1978 - 30 June 1979 period relat-ing
to recommendations by the Judicial Standards
Commission filed prior to 1 July 1978. In In re Martin,
295 N.C. 291 (1978), the Court declined to follow the
recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission
for removal and instead imposed a censure of the re-spondent
judge. It did, however, concur with and ap-prove
the Commission's recommendation for removal
in In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109 (1978), thereby removing
the respondent judge from office, disqualifying him
from holding further judicial office, and making him
ineligible to receive retirement benefits.
45
PART III
COURT RESOURCES
Financial
Personnel
^m
s^K^S
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
Under the State Constitution the operating expenses
of the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts)
"other than compensation to process servers and other
locally paid non-judicial officers" are required to be
paid from State funds. It is customary legislative prac-tice
for the General Assembly to include appropria-tions
for the operating expenses of all three branches of
State government in a single budget bill, for a two-year
period ending on June 30 of the odd-numbered years.
In recent years, the General Assembly has customarily
held a "short" session in even-numbered years and the
budget for the second year of the biennium is generally
modified during these short sessions.
Building facilities for the appellate courts are provid-ed
by State funds, but by statute the county govern-ments
are required to provide from county funds for
adequate facilites for the trial courts within each of the
100 counties.
State appropriations for the operating expenses of
the Judicial Department for fiscal year July 1, 1978
through June 30, 1979 totalled $63,685,178. These were
appropriations from the State's general fund. General
Fund appropriations for the operating expenses of all
State agencies and departments, including the Judicial
Department, totalled $2,452,011,095 for fiscal year,
1978-79. (These do not include appropriations for capi-tal
construction or appropriations from the Highway
Fund for highway construction and repair.)
As is illustrated in the chart below, General Fund
appropriations for the operating expenses of the Judi-cial
Department comprised 2.6% of the General Fund
appropriations for the operating expenses of all State
agencies and departments.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
APPROPRIATION
$63,685,178
47
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
Appropriations from the State's general fund for
operating expenses of the Judicial Department over the
past five fiscal years are shown in the table below and
in the graph at the top of the following page. For com-parative
purposes, appropriations from the general
fund for operating expenses of all State agencies and
departments (including the Judicial Department) for
the last five fiscal years are also shown in the table
below and in the second graph on the following page.
APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES
Judicial Department All State Agencies
Fiscal Year
1974- 1975
1975- 1976
1976- 1977
1977- 1978
1978- 1979
% Increase over % Increase over
Appropriation previous year Appropriation previous year
$39,970,067 $1,692,373,585
42,908,242 7.35% 1,737,659,496 2.68%
47,218,782 10.05% 1,962,976,606 12.97%
56,319,115 19.27% 2,193,405,714 11.74%
63,685,178 13.08% 2,452,011,095 11.79%
REASE, 1974- 1979 12.44% 9.80%
During the past decade, including the five-year peri-od
covered by the above table, inflation has been a sig-nificant
factor in the national economy. For example,
during 1978-79, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics
data, the average person spent $205.20 to pay for goods
and services which could have been obtained for
$100.00 in 1967. Therefore, if these appropriations are
stated in 1967 dollars, the average annual increase in
Judicial Department appropriations for the past five
years would be 4.0% instead of 12.44% as reflected in
the table above.
The greatest percentage increase in Judicial Depart-ment
appropriations during this period was for the
1977-78 fiscal year. The increase for that year was due
in large measure to a significant increase in the number
of superior court judges (20%) and an increase in the
number of assistant district attorneys (18%) for that
year.
4S
GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES OF
THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, 1974-75 — 1978-79
$70,000,000
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$63,685,178
1978-
1979
GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES OF ALL
STATE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS, 1974-75 — 1978-79
S2
$2
$2
SI
SI
500,000,000
250,000,000
000,000,000
,750,000,000
,500,000,000
,250,000,000
,000,000,000
750,000,000
500,000,000
250,000,000
$2,452,011,095,
1974-
1975
1975-
1976
1976-
1977
1977-
1978
1978-
1979
49
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES
July 1, 1978 - June 30, 1979
General Fund expenditures, rounded to the nearest
dollar, for operating expenses of the Judicial Depart-ment
during the 1978-79 fiscal year totalled
$62,245,923, divided among the major budget classifi-cations
as shown below. Expenditures for LEAA-funded
projects in the Judicial Department totalled
$2,584,907, for a grand total of $64,830,830 in Judicial
Department expenditures.
Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
Superior Courts
(This classification includes judges, district attorneys, assistant district attorneys, court
reporters, and staff personnel.)
District Courts
(This classification includesjudges, magistrates, and court reporters.)
Clerks of Superior Court
(This classification includes all 100 clerks and their staffs, juror fees, witness fees, and
such support services as supplies, postage, telephone expenses, and office equipment for
all local Judicial Department personnel.)
Juvenile Probation and Aftercare
Legal Representation for Indigents
Assigned private counsel ($4,568,495)
Public defenders ($1,149,780)
Special counsel at mental hospitals ($162,354)
Support services (transcripts, records, briefs) ($243,659)
Administrative Office of the Courts
Judicial Council
Judicial Standards Commission
Total General Fund Expenditures
LEAA-Funded Projects
GRAND TOTAL
The distribution of General Fund expenditures
among the major budget categories is illustrated in the
chart on the following page.
%of
Amount Total
1,173,674 1.9%
1,485,877 2.4%
12,377,669 19.9%
12,745,520 20.5%
21,457,921 34.5%
5,515,169
6,124,288
1,361,382
1,921
2,502
62,245,923
2,584,907
64,830,830
8.9S
9.8'-
2.1%
100.0%
50
JU