text:
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
Id I: mo/j/ C s ^xxrtij (Earnlma (Eaurte 1990-91 |<W. ~ ':— ^ .'-'\ ~* -~ .""*'"- N.C. DOCUMENTS CLEARINGHOUSE JVnnual ^Report of tij£ AUG 23 1993 N.C. STATE LIBRARY RALE!G< The Cover: The Halifax County Courthouse in Halifax, North Carolina was completed in 1987. Located on a tract of some one hundred acres and approached by a long drive, the Flemish bond brick building presents an impressive view. The eclectic design combines Neoclassical, French and Italian influences, with a symmetrical main block dominated by a five-bay colonnade with Italianate arched openings. The rear of the building features a large Palladian window and is connected to an adjoining Public Safety building by a colonnaded walkway. Halifax County was formed in 1758 from Edgecombe County and was named in honor of George Montagu Dunk, Earl of Halifax. Halifax County was the home of the late Chief Justice Joseph Branch, to whom this Annual Report is dedicated. NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 1990-91 ANNUAL REPORT of the ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS IN MEMORIAM JOSEPH BRANCH CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUST 1, 1979 — AUGUST 31, 1986 ASSOCIATE JUSTICE AUGUST 29, 1966 — JULY 31, 1979 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1991nort ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS JUSTICE BUILDING RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA The Honorable James G. Exum, Jr., Chief Justice The Supreme Court of North Carolina Raleigh, North Carolina Dear Mr. Chief Justice: In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes, I herewith transmit the Twenty-fifth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1, 1990 — June 30, 1991. Fiscal year 1990-91 marks the seventh consecutive year with significant increases in filings and dispositions in the Superior Courts. During 1 990-9 1 , as compared to 1 989-90, total case filings in Superior Court increased by 5.6% and dispositions increased by 9.8%. In District Court, total case filings decreased by 0.8% and total dispositions increased by 1 .4%. The decrease in total filings during 1990-9 1 , compared to 1989-90, represents the first decrease since fiscal 1981-82. In both Superior and District Court, because total filings were greater than total dispositions, more cases were pending at the end of the fiscal year than were pending at the beginning. Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, and writing required to produce this Annual Report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, principal responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Information Services Division. The principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of the clerks of superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of the State. The Clerk of the Supreme Court and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals provided the case data relating to our appellate courts. Without the responsible work of many persons across the State this report would not have been possible. Respectfully submitted, L t- n »-i I - 1 1 *-t L. r /-i t-\ r-v~t r\ r\ I r Franklin Freeman, Jr. Director June 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I The 1990-91 Judicial Year in Review North Carolina Judicial Branch Fact Sheet 1 The 1990-91 Judicial Year in Review 2 Part II Court System Organization and Operations in 1990-91 Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 9 The Present Court System 12 Organization and Operations The Supreme Court 16 The Court of Appeals 27 Map of Judicial Divisions and Superior Court Districts 31 Map of District Court Districts 32 Map of Prosecutorial Districts 33 The Superior Courts 34 The District Courts 37 District Attorneys 42 Clerks of Superior Court 46 The Administrative Office of the Courts 49 Juvenile Services Division 51 Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services 53 Trial Court Administrators 55 Public Defenders 57 Appellate Defender 59 Court-Ordered Arbitration 60 Child Custody and Visitation Mediation 63 The North Carolina Courts Commission 65 The Judicial Standards Commission 67 Part III Court Resources in 1990-91 Judicial Department Finances Appropriations 71 Expenditures 74 Receipts 76 Distribution of Receipts 77 Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 80 Judicial Department Personnel 88 Part IV Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1990-91 Trial Courts Case Data 91 Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 95 District Court Division Caseflow Data 187 Tables, Charts and Graphs Parti The 1990-91 Judicial Year in Review North Carolina Judicial Branch Fact Sheet 1 Part II Court System Organization and Operations in 1990-91 Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the Present Court System 12 Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts 15 The Supreme Court of North Carolina 16 Supreme Court, Caseload Inventory 18 Supreme Court, Appeals Filed 19 Supreme Court, Petitions Filed 19 Supreme Court, Caseload Types 20 Supreme Court, Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage 21 Supreme Court, Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 21 Supreme Court, Disposition of Appeals 22 Supreme Court, Manner 'of Disposition of Appeals 23 Supreme Court, Type of Disposition of Petitions 23 Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Disposed, 1985-86—1990-91 24 Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed, 1985-86—1990-91 25 Supreme Court, Processing Time for Disposed Cases 26 The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 27 Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 29 Court of Appeals, Manner of Case Dispositions 29 Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1985-86—1990-91 30 Map of Judicial Divisions and Superior Court Districts 31 Map of District Court Districts 32 Map of Prosecutorial Districts 33 Judges of Superior Court • 34 Special, Emergency, and Retired/ Recalled Judges of Superior Court 35 District Court Judges 37 District Attorneys 42 Clerks of Superior Court 46 Administrative Office of the Courts 49 Juvenile Services Division — Chief Court Counselors 52 Guardian Ad Litem Division District Administrators 54 Trial Court Administrators 55 Public Defenders 57 Office of the Appellate Defender 59 Summary of Arbitration Activity 61 Child Custody and Visitation Mediation Activity 64 The North Carolina Courts Commission 65 The Judicial Standards Commission 67 Tables, Charts and Graphs Part III Court Resources in 1990-91 General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies and Judicial Department 71 General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies and Judicial Department 72 General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of the Judicial Department and All State Agencies, 1984-85—1990-91 73 Judicial Department Expenditures, 1990-9 1 74 Judicial Department Expenditures, 1990-91 and 1984-85 — 1990-91 75 Judicial Department Receipts 76 Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 77 Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 78 Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 81 State Mental Health Hospital Commitment Hearings 82 Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem Cases and Expenditures 83 Judicial Department Personnel 88 Part IV Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1990-91 Superior Courts, Caseload Trends 96 Superior Courts, Caseload 97 Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 98 Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Trends 99 Superior Courts, Civil Case Filings By Case-Type 100 Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory, By District and County 101 Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition 106 Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, By District and County 107 Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Pending, By District and County 114 Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Disposed, By District and County 119 Superior Courts, Caseload Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 124 Superior Courts, Filings and Dispositions For Estates and Special Proceedings, By District and County ^ 125 Superior Courts, Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases 130 Superior Courts, Criminal Case Filings By Case-Type 131 Superior Courts, Caseload Inventory for Criminal Cases, By District and County 132 Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies 138 Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies, By District and County 139 Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors 147 Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors, By District and County 148 Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Pending, By District and County 156 Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Disposed, By District and County 170 District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 189 District Courts, Caseload Trends 190 District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 191 District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Cases 192 in Tables, Charts and Graphs District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Filings By Case-Type 193 District Courts. Civil Caseload Inventory, By District and County 194 District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 199 District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, By District and County 200 District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Pending, By District and County 210 District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Disposed, By District and County 215 District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer Cases Pending, By District and County 220 District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer Cases Disposed, By District and County 225 District Courts, Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 230 District Courts, Matters Alleged in Juvenile Petitions, By District and County 233 District Courts, Adjudicatory Hearings For Juvenile Matters, By District and County 238 District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Infraction and Criminal Cases 245 District Courts, Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 246 District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory, By District and County 25 1 District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 256 District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition, By District and County 257 District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Pending, By District and County 263 District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Disposed, By District and County 269 District Courts, Infraction Case Filings and Dispositions, By District and County 275 IV PARTI THE 1990-1991 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL BRANCH FACT SHEET Fiscal Year July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991 Population and Area Served: 6,700,000 48,843 100 Population (approximate) Square Miles Counties Court Organization: 44 Superior Court Districts for Administrative Purposes 60 Superior Court Districts for Elective Purposes 37 District Court Districts 37 Prosecutorial Districts 1 1 Public Defender Districts Numbers of Justices and Judges: 7 Supreme Court Justices 12 Court of Appeals Judges 83 Superior Court Judges 179 District Court Judges Numbers of Other Authorized Personnel: 37 District Attorneys 257 Assistant District Attorneys 100 Clerks of Superior Court 1,745 Clerk Personnel 659 Magistrates 1 1 Public Defenders 75 Assistant Public Defenders 12 Trial Court Administrators 397 Juvenile Services Personnel 77 Guardian Ad Litem Personnel 197 Administrative Office of the Courts 650 Other Staff Total Judicial Branch Personnel: 4,498 BUDGET Total Judicial Branch Appropriations, 1990-91: Percent Increase from 1989-90: Total Judicial Branch Appropriations as a Percent of Total State General Fund Appropriations: $205,610,446 2.39% 2.87% CASES FILED AND DISPOSED, FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 % Change % Change From From Court Filed 1989-90 Disposed 1989-90 Supreme Court: Appeals 189 8.0% 173 22.7% Petitions 492 -21.4% 498 -17.1% Court of Appeals: Appeals 1,325 -5.9% 1,414 3.5% Petitions 415 -8.0% 415 -3.7% Superior Court*: 231,843 4.1% 218,005 7.8% District Court**: 2,253,348 -0.8% 2,175,869 1.4% 'Includes Felonies, Misdemeanors, Civil, Estates, and Special Proceedings. "Includes Criminal Non- vlotor Ver icle, Criminal Motor Vehicle, Infractions, Small Claims, Domestic Relations General Civil and Magistrate Appeals / Transfers and Civil License Revocatioiis (Civil License Revocations are counted only ;it filing). THE 1990-91 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW This Annual Report on the work of North Carolina's Judicial Department is for the fiscal year which began July 1. 1990. and ended June 30, 1991. The Workload of the Courts Case filings in the Supreme Court during 1990-91 totaled 189. compared with 175 filings during 1989-90. A total of 492 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, compared with 626 in 1989-90, and 53 petitions were allowed, compared with 106 in 1989-90. For the Court of Appeals for 1990-91, 1,325 appealed cases were filed, compared with 1,408 for the 189-90 year. Petitions filed in 1990-91 totaled 415, compared with 451 during the 1989-90 year. More detailed data on the appellate courts are in-cluded in Part II of this Annual Report. In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal) increased by 5.6% to a total of 135,419 in 1990-91, compared with 128,215 in 1989-90. Superior court case dispositions increased by 9.8% to a total of 129,302, compared with 1 17,787 in 1989-90. As case filings during the year exceeded case dispositions, the total number of cases pending at the end of the year increased by 6,1 17. Not including juvenile proceedings and mental health hospital commitment hearings, the statewide total of district court filings (civil and criminal) during 1990-91 was 2,253,348, a decrease of 17,108 (0.8%) from 1989-90 filings of 2,270,456 cases; this marks the first decrease in total district court filings since fiscal 1981-82. During 1990-91, a total of 651,728 infraction cases were filed along with a total of 493,974 criminal motor vehicle cases, for a combined total of 1,145,702 cases. This combined total is a decrease of 20,623 cases (1.8%) from the 1,166,325 motor vehicle and infraction cases filed during 1989-90. During 1990-91, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle cases in the district courts increased by 6,958 cases (1.2%) to 610,286, compared with 603,328 filed during 1989-90. Filings of civil magistrate cases in the district courts decreased by 13,363 (4.6%), to 279,209 during 1990-91 compared with 292,572 during 1989-90. Domestic relations case filings in the district courts increased b 10.6%, from 77,140 in 1989-90 to 85,331 in 1990-91. Operations of the superior and district courts are summarized in Part II of this Report, and detailed information on the caseloads is presented in Part IV for the 100 countis, and for the judicial and prosecutorial districts. Legislative Highlights Redistricting of District Court District 3 District Court District 3 (Pitt, Carteret, Craven and Pamlico Counties) was divided into District Court Dis-tricts 3A (Pitt County) and 3B (Carteret, Craven and Pamlico Counties) (Session Laws 1991, Chapter 742, Section 12, amending G.S. 7A-133 effective September 1, 1991). As a result, District Court Districts 3A and 3B will be coterminous with Superior Court and Prosecu-torial Districts 3A and 3B. The legislation allocates the seven district court judges presently authorized for District 3, with three judges allocated to District 3A and four judges to District 3B. (This redistricting has been precleared by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the U.S. Voting Rights Act.) Expanded Jurisdiction of Clerks and Magistrates The jurisdiction of clerks and magistrates in worthless check cases was expanded to cases in which the maxi-mum amount of the check does not exceed $2,000 (increased from $1,000) (Chapter 520, effective October I, 1991, amending G.S. 7A- 180(8) for clerks and G.S. 7A-273(6) and (8) for magistrates). Increases in Maximum Numbers of Magistrates The General Assembly increased the maximum num-ber of magistrates authorized in G.S. 7A-133 for the following counties: Dare, from 5 to 8; Beaufort, from 5 to 8; Onslow, from 11 to 14; Wayne, from 8 to 11; Lenoir, from 7 to 10; Wake, from 17 to 20; Orange, from 9 to 11; and Chatham, from 6 to 8 (Chapter 742, Section I I, effective July 1, 1991). (The maximums authorized in G.S. 7A-133 are not the numbers of positions actually established, but rather the numbers of positions that may Deallocated subject to funding and need.) Extend Nonbinding Arbitration and Custody Mediation Programs The General Assembly authorized the Administrative Office of the Courts to use $75,000 of the funds approp-riated for fiscal 1991-92 to expand implementation of two alternative dispute resolution programs to addi-tional districts or counties (Chapter 742, Section 10). The two programs are, first, under G.S. 7A-37.1, for mandatory nonbinding arbitration of civil actions in-volving claims of $15,000 or less, and second, under G.S. 7A-494, for mediation of disputes over the custody or visitation of minor children. Court-Ordered Mediated Settlement Conferences New Section G.S. 7A-38 establishes a pilot program in judicial districts to be determined by the Administrative Office of the Courts and the senior resident superior court judge, under which superior court civil cases may be referred to a mediator for a pretrial settlement conference (Chapter 207, effective October 1, 1991). The legislation specifies that the senior resident superior court judge may order a mediated settlement conference for all or any part of a case, and authorizes the Supreme Court to adopt implementing rules. The AOC is author-ized to solicit private funds; no State funds are to be used to establish, conduct or evaluate the pilot program. The AOC is to submit a written report to the General THE 1990-91 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW Assembly by May 1, 1995, evaluating whether the medi-ation makes the operation of the superior courts more efficient, less costly, and more satisfying to litigants. Filing by Telefacsimile Authorized Rule 5(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, G.S. 1A-1, was amended to allow pleadings or other court papers to be filed with the clerk of superior court by telefacsimile transmission, //the Supreme Court and the Administra-tive Office of the Courts establish uniform rules, regula-tions, procedures, and specifications governing such filings (Chapter 168, effective May 30, 1991). Expansion of Automated Accounting System The General Assembly appropriated $453,617 for fiscal year 1991-92 to expand and enhance the auto-mated accounting system in clerks' offices (Chapter 742, Section 9). Community Penalties Program, Transfer and Changes The General Assembly transferred the Community Penalties Program from the Department of Crime Con-trol and Public Safety to the Administrative Office of the Courts (Chapter 566, effective July 1, 1991, recodifying G.S. 143B-500 et. seq. as G.S. 7A-770 et. seq.). The Community Penalties Program was created by the Com-munity Penalties Act of 1983 to reduce prison over-crowding by providing judges with community sen-tencing options to be used in lieu of and at less cost than imprisonment. The Program awards and administers grants to local nonprofit agencies, of which there are presently eighteen. (An additional program in Bun-combe County, similar to the others but not grant-funded, was transferred to AOC in 1987.) The local programs identify eligible convicted offenders and pre-pare community penalty plans for sentencing judges to consider. This legislation also amended G.S. 7A-771(5) regard-ing the types of offenders to be targeted for considera-tion of a community penalty plan. The Act defines "targeted offenders" as persons convicted of misde-meanors or Class H, I, or J felonies, who face an imminent and substantial threat of imprisonment. Pre-viously, only nonviolent offenders were targeted. The amendments remove this limitation, except for persons convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The amend-ments also add a requirement limiting "targeted of-fenders" to persons who would be eligible for intensive probation or house arrest. New and Revised Criminal Offenses As in previous years, in 1991 the General Assembly enacted legislation in areas of criminal law that, al-though not directly pertaining to court offices, impacts on criminal caseloads or procedures and thus affects court operations. Possession of drugs in prison or jail was made a Class I felony (Chapter 484, adding subsec-tion G.S. 90-95(e)(9) effective October 1, 1991), and additional drugs were added to the list of Schedule III controlled substances (Chapter 413, amending G.S. 90-91(k) effective July 1, 1991). Two bills ad-dressed the subject of "hate crimes" (Chapters 493 and 702, both effective October 1, 1991). A new misde-meanor offense of ethnic intimidation was created in G.S. 14-401.14, and commission of an offense because of a person's race, color, religion or nationality was made an aggravating factor for felony sentencing under G.S. 15A- 1340.4(a)(1) and will enhance punishment of mis-demeanor offenses or make misdemeanor offenses Class J felonies under new subsection G.S. 14-3(c). Law enforcement officers were authorized to make war-rantless arrests for certain domestic assaults (Chapter 150, amending G.S. 15A-401(b) effective October 1, 1991). Other new offenses or expanded punishments included reclassification of worthless check offenses from misdemeanors to Class J felonies for checks in excess of $2,000 (Chapter 523, Section 1, amending G.S. 14-107 effective October 1, 1991); possession of a weapon on educational property (Chapter 622 amending G.S. 14-269.2 effective October 1, 1991); littering laws (Chap-ter 609, effective October 1, 1991); and criminally negli-gent hunting (Chapter 748 adding G.S. 1 13-290 effective October 1, 1991). Prison Facilities The General Assembly allocated $103.4 million of the $200 million in prison bond funds approved by the voters in a referendum in November 1990 (Chapter 689, Section 239). The authorized projects will add 3,298 beds to the State prison system. An additional $9.1 million was allocated to the Department of Human Resources to expand and renovate juvenile training schools to which juveniles may be committed after an adjudication of delinquency. Prison Population In Chapter 437, effective in stages, the General As-sembly amended G.S. 148-4.1, revising the maximum number of prisoners that can be housed in the State prison system before the Parole Commission must re-duce the prison population by granting parole to other-wise eligible offenders. The "prison cap" was reduced from 20,026 to 19,253 effective June 30, 1991, raised to 19,986 effective February 1, 1992, and raised to 20,182 effective May 1, 1992. The Secretary of Correction may advance or delay the effective dates by up to 45 days based on the availability of prison space. Fiscal Notes for Legislation Affecting Prisons New Section G.S. 120-36.7 requires preparation of a fiscal note estimating the costs of any proposed change in law that could cause a net increase in the number of incarcerated persons or in the length of time for which THE 1990-91 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW prisoners are incarcerated (Chapter 689, Section 340). The fiscal notes, which are to cover the first five years that the proposed change in law would be in effect, are to be prepared by the Fiscal Research Division of the General Assembly in consultation with the Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. (The Administrative Office of the Courts has been consulted routinely for necessary data and analysis in connection with fiscal notes. This law expands and institutionalizes the prepara-tion of fiscal notes.) Investigative Grand Juries Expanded; Sunset Removed The special type of grand jury that the General Assembly first authorized in 1986 for investigation of drug trafficking offenses was made permanent (Chapter 686, removing the law's October 1, 1993, expiration date). This legislation also amends certain provisions of G.S. 15A-622(h) and G.S. 15A-623(h), permitting an investigative grand jury to be convened from an existing grand jury, allowing otherwise admissible testimony to be used at trial, specifying a twelve-month term for the members of an investigative grand jury, and requiring that when necessary to prevent disclosure of the grand jury's existence, the superior court judge may hear matters concerning an investigative grand jury in camera (not in open court) with a court reporter present. Increased Funding for Indigent Defense One of the fastest growing components of the Judicial Department budget has been the costs for providing legal representation for indigent persons who have a right to a court-appointed lawyer. The General Assembly appropriated the following increases: for the Indigent Persons' Attorney Fee Fund, $2,374,043 for 1991-92 and S2,369,249 for 1992-93; for the Special Capital Case Rehearing Fund, S547,626 for 1991-92 and $1,048,424 for 1992-93; and for additional needs of the Guardian Ad Litem Volunteer and Contract Program, $225,000 for each year of the 1991-1993 biennium. (These are expansion amounts; total indigent defense spending in 1990-91 came to $29.4 million. The appropriations for 1992-93 are subject to revision by the General Assembly in the 1992 Session.) Indigent Defense Studies The General Assembly directed the Administrative Office of the Courts to conduct two studies relating to the types of programs used to provide lawyers for indigent persons (Chapter 689, Section 81). First, the legislature requested a report on the cost-effectiveness of establishing a public defender office in three districts that do not presently have public defender offices: Districts 4A (Duplin, Jones and Sampson Counties), 5 (New Hanover and Pender Counties) and 10 (Wake County). These districts were identified in a previous AOC study as being close to the point where a public defender office may be cost-effective. Second, the General Assembly requested a report on the cost-effectiveness of existing public defender offices. Final reports are to be submitted by May 20, 1992. Indigent Defense Contracting Pilot The General Assembly authorized the Administrative Office of the Courts to conduct a pilot project in three districts for providing indigent defense by means of "specialized" contracts with one or more private attor-neys (Chapter 575, Section 2). Authority already exists in G.S. 7A-344(4) for such specialized contract represen-tation in juvenile cases, but not for criminal or other indigent defense cases. A written evaluation of the pilot project is to be submitted to the General Assembly by May 1, 1993. Commitment Following Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity Following a study by a committee of the Legislative Research Commission, the General Assembly rewrote the laws governing civil commitment of persons charged with a crime and found not guilty by reason of insanity (Chapter 37, effective April 16, 1991, adding new sections G.S. 122C-268.1 and G.S. 122C-276.1, and amending G.S. 15A-1321 and other sections in G.S. Chapter 1 22C). In place of provisions that apply to civil commit-ments generally, the legislation establishes special com-mitment standards and procedures for defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity. Immediately following such a disposition, the judge must order the defendant committed to a State 24-hour mental health facility. The first review of the commitment occurs at a hearing within fifty days (compared to ten days for commitments generally). The first and subsequent review hearings are held in the trial division in which the criminal case was tried and are open to the public (other commitment pro-ceedings are district court hearings and are confidential). At the first and subsequent hearings, committed persons must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are no longer dangerous to others and, if this burden is met, that they are no longer mentally ill or that confine-ment is no longer necessary (in other civil commitment proceedings, the State must show by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that the patient is mentally ill and dangerous to self or others). Family Law Changes The General Assembly enacted several changes in laws and procedures governing divorce and equitable distri-bution. G.S. 50-10 was amended to authorize use of sum-mary judgment in an action for absolute divorce (Chap-ter 568, effective October 1, 1991). Other measures included authorization for orders making interim trans-fers of assets while an equitable distribution action is pending (Chapter 635, adding G.S. 50-20(il) effective October 1, 1991); a rebuttable presumption that property THE 1990-91 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW obtained during marriage and before separation is mari-tal property (Chapter 625, amending G.S. 50-20(b)(I) effective October I, 1991); and an act authorizing the guardian of an incompetent spouse to commence domes-tic relations actions, including for equitable distribution but with an exception for absolute divorce (Chapter 610, adding G.S. 50-22 effective October 1, 1991). Court Costs Increased The 1991 Session of the General Assembly increased the costs for support of the General Court of Justice by four dollars in civil, criminal and infraction cases in superior and district courts (Chapter 742, Section 15 amending G.S. 7A-304 and G.S. 7A-305 effective July 1, 1991). New Positions The General Assembly appropriated or authorized the use of funds for the following new positions during fiscal 1991-92: ten assistant district attorneys, one each for Prosecutorial Districts 7, 10, 15A, 19A, 20, 22, 25, and 29, and two in District 26; seven secretaries for District Attorney offices; two magistrates to be allocated in accordance with G.S. 7A-171; and 34 deputy clerks. The General Assembly also authorized use of funds from the Indigent Persons Attorney Fee Fund for five assistant public defender positions during 1991-92 and five addi-tional positions during 1992-93. Appropriations The 1991 General Assembly appropriated $206,206,015 to the Judicial Department for fiscal 1991-92 and $211,237,680 for fiscal 1992-93 (current operations, Chapter 689, Section 3; the 1992-93 appropriation is subject to revision by the General Assembly in the 1992 Session). PART II COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS • Historical Development of Court System • Present Court System • Organization and Operations in 1990-91 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM From its early colonial period North Carolina's judicial system has been the focus of periodic attention and adjustment. Through the years, there has been a repeated sequence of critical examination, proposals for reform, and finally the enactment of some reform measures. Colonial Period Around 1700 the royal governor established a General (or Supreme) Court for the colony, and a dispute developed over the appointment of associate justices. The Assembly conceded to the King the right to name the chief justice, but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the power to appoint the associate justices. Other controversies developed concerning the creation and jurisdiction of the courts and the tenure of judges. As for the latter, the Assembly's position was that judge appointments should be for good behavior as against the royal governor's decision for life appointment. State historians have noted that "the Assembly won its fight to establish courts and the judicial structure in the province was grounded on laws enacted by the legislature," which was more familiar with local conditions and needs (Lefler and Newsome, 142). Nevertheless, North Carolina alternated between periods under legislatively enacted reforms (like good behavior tenure and the Court Bill of 1746, which contained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary court system) and periods of stalemate and anarchy after such enactments were nullified by royal authority. A more elaborate system was framed by legislation in 1767 to last five years. It was not renewed because of persisting disagreement between local and royal partisans. As a result, North Carolina was without higher courts until after Independence (Battle, 847). At the lower court level during the colonial period, judicial and county government administrative functions were combined in the authority of the justices of the peace, who were appointed by the royal governor. After the Revolution When North Carolina became a state in 1776, the colonial structure of the court system was retained largely intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the county courts which continued in use from about 1670 to 1868 — were still held by the assembled justices of the peace in each county. The justices were appointed by the governor on the recommendation of the General Assem-bly, and they were paid out of fees charged litigants. On the lowest level of the judicial system, magistrate courts of limited jurisdiction were held by justices of the peace, singly or in pairs, while the county court was out of term. The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the General Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of Law and Equity. A court law enacted a year later authorized three superior court judges and created judicial districts. Sessions were supposed to be held in the court towns of each district twice a year, under a system much like the one that had expired in 1772. Just as there had been little distinction in terminology between General Court and Supreme Court prior to the Revolution, the terms Supreme Court and Superior Court were also inter-changeable during the period immediately following the Revolution. One of the most vexing governmental problems con-fronting the new State of North Carolina was its judiciary. "From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary caused complaint and demands for reform." (Lefler and New-some, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflictingjudge opinions, an insufficient number of judges, and lack of means for appeal were all cited as problems, although the greatest weakness was considered to be the lack of a real Supreme Court. In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court of Conference 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 districts in panels of as few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 1818, though, an inde-pendent three-judge Supreme Court was created for review of cases decided at the Superior Court level. Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in each county were made mandatory in 1 806, and the State was divided into six circuits, or .ridings, where the six judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constituting a quorum as before. The County Court of justices of the peace continued during this period as the lowest court and as the agency of local government. After the Civil War Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it more democratic were made in 1 868. A primary holdover from the English legal arrangement — the distinction between law and equity proceedings — was abolished. The County Court's control of local government was abolished. Capital offenses were limited to murder, arson, burglary and rape, and the Constitution stated that the aim of punishment was "not only to satisfy justice, but also to reform the offender, and thus prevent crime. "The membership of the Supreme Court was raised to five, and the selection of the justices (including the designation of the chief justice) and superior court judges (raised in number to 1 2) was taken from the legislature and given to the voters, although vacancies were to be filled by the governor until the next election. The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — The County Court of which three justices of the peace constituted a quorum — was eliminated. Its judicial responsibilities were divided be-tween 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 Con-stitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme Court Historical Development Of The North Carolina Court System, Continued justices to three and the Superior Court judges to nine. The General Assembly, instead of the governor, was given the power to appoint justices of the peace. Most of the modernizing changes in the post-Civil War Constitution, however, were left, and the judicial structure it had established continued without systematic modification through more than half of the 20th century. (A further constitutional amendment approved by the voters in November, 1888, returned the Supreme Court member-ship 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 statutory courts of limited jurisdiction; and (d) justices of the peace and mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction. At the superior court level, the State had been divided into 30 judicial districts and 21 solicitorial districts. The 38 superior court judges (who rotated among the counties) and the district solicitors were paid by the State. The clerk of superior court, who was judge of probate and often also a juvenile judge, was a county official. There were specialized branches of superior court in some counties for matters like domestic relations and juvenile offenses. The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher of these local court levels were more than 180 recorder-type courts. Among these were the county recorder's courts, municipal recorder's courts and township recorder's courts; the general county courts, county criminal courts and special county courts; the domestic relations courts and the juvenile courts. Some of these had been estab-lished 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), prelimi-nary hearings and sometimes civil matters. The judges, who were usually part-time, were variously elected or appointed locally. At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had similar criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties up to a S50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the peace also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These court officials were compensated by the fees they exacted, and they provided their own facilities. Court Reorganization The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revision of the court system received the attention and support of Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who encouraged the leadership of the North Carolina Bar Association to pursue the matter. A Court Study Committee was established as an agency of the North Carolina Bar Association, and that Committee issued its report, calling for reorganization, at the end of 1958. A legislative Constitutional Commission, which worked with the Court Study Committee, finished its report early the next year. Both groups called for the structuring of an all-inclusive court system which would be directly state-operated, uniform in its organization throughout the State and centralized in its administration. The plan was for a simplified, streamlined and unified structure. A particularly important part of the proposal was the elimination of the local statutory courts and their replace-ment by a single District Court; the office ofjustice 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 Assembly enacted statutes to put the system into effect by stages. By the end of 1970 all of the counties and their courts had been incorporated into the new system, whose unitary nature was symbolized by the name, General Court of Justice. The designation of the entire 20th century judicial system as a single, statewide "court," with components for various types and levels 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 continued. In 1 965, the Constitution was amended to provide for the creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It was amended again in 1972 to allow for the Supreme Court to censure or remove judges; implementing legislation pro-vides for such action upon the recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission. As for the selection of judges, persistent efforts were made in the 1970's to obtain legislative approval of amendments to the State Constitu-tion, to appoint judges according to "merit" instead of electing them by popular, partisan vote. The proposed amendments received the backing of a majority of the members of each house, but not the three-fifths required to submit constitutional amendments to a vote of the people. Merit selection continues to be a significant issue before the General Assembly. 10 Historical Development Of The North Carolina Court System, Continued Major Sources Battle, Kemp P., An Address on the History of the Supreme Court (Delivered in 1888). 1 North Carolina Reports 835-876. Hinsdale, C. E., County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition. Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina: The History of a Southern State. 1963 Edition. Sanders, John L., Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of Government. Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold, North Carolina Courts ofLaw and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular, 1973. 11 THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal (As of June 30, 1991) Recommendations from Judicial Standards Commission SUPREME COURT 7 Justices Original Jurisdiction All felony cases; civil cases in excess of SI 0.000* SUPERIOR COURTS 83 Judges Final Order of Utilities Commission in General Rate Cases COURT OF APPEALS 12 Judges V(2) Decisions of Most Administrative Agencies Original Jurisdiction Probate and estates, special proceedings 'condemnations, adoptions, partitions, foreclosures, etc.); in certain littering cases, may accept guilty pleas and enter judgments Vcriminal cases (for trial de novo) civil cases DISTRICT COURTS / 79 Judges Clerks of Superior Court (100) Magistrates (659) N Decisions of Industrial Commission, State Bar, Property Tax Commission, Commissioner of Insurance, Dept. of Human Resources, Commissioner of Banks, Administrator of Savings and Loans, Governor's Waste Management Board, and the Utilities Commission (in cases other than general rate cases) Original Jurisdiction Misdemeanor cases not assigned to magistrates; probable cause hearings; civil cases $10,000* or less; juvenile proceedings; domestic relations; involuntary commitments Original Jurisdiction Accept certain misdemeanor guilty pleas and admissions of responsibility to infractions; worthless check misdemeanors $1,000 or less; small claims $2,000 or less; valuation of property in certain estate cases (1) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in cases involving constitutional questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may review Court of Appeals decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. (2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. (3) As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in first degree murder cases in which the defendent has been sentenced to death or life imprisonment, and in Utilities Commission genera) rate cases. In all other cases appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the trial courts in cases of significant public interest, cases involving legal principles of major significance, where delay would cause substantial harm, or when the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full. *The district and superior courts have concurrent original jurisdiction in civil actions (G.S. 7A-242). However, the district court division is the proper division for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less; and the superior court division is the proper division for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (G.S. 7A-243). 12 THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution establ-ishes the General Court of Justice which "shall consti-ute a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction, )peration, and administration, and shall consist of an Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a District Court Division." The Appellate Division consists of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The Superior Court Division is composed of the superior courts, which hold sessions in the county seats of the 100 counties of the State. There are 60 superior court districts for electoral purposes only. For adminis-trative purposes, these are collapsed into 44 districts or 'sets of districts." Some superior court districts comprise one county, some comprise two or more counties, and the more populous counties are divided into two or more districts for purposes of election of superior court judges. One or more superior court judges are elected for each of the superior court districts. A clerk of the superior court for each county is elected by the voters of the county. The District Court Division comprises the district courts. The General Assembly is authorized to divide the State into a convenient number of local court districts and prescribe where the district courts shall sit, but district court must sit in at least one place in each county. There are 37 district court districts, with each district composed of one or more counties. One or more district court judges are elected for each of the district court districts. The Constitution also provides that one or more magistrates "who shall be officers of the district court" shall be appointed in each county. The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains the term, "judicial department," and states 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 Depart-ment" are almost, but not quite, synonymous. It may be said that the Judicial Department encompasses all of the levels of court designated as the General Court of Justice plus all administrative and ancillary services within the Judicial Department. The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal between the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of courts are illustrated in the chart on the previous page. Criminal and Infraction Cases Trial of misdemeanor and infraction cases is within the original jurisdiction of the district courts. Worthless check cases under $1,000 may be tried by magistrates, who are also empowered to accept pleas of guilty and admissions of responsibility to certain misdemeanor and infraction offenses and impose fines in accordance with a schedule set by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges. Clerks of Superior Court may also accept guilty pleas and enter judgments in certain littering cases. 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 jurisdic-tion of the superior courts. Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the district court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by jury available at the district court level; appeal from the district courts' judgments in criminal cases is to the superior courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in life-imprisonment or death sentence first degree murder cases (which are appealed to the Supreme Court), appeals of right from the superior courts are to the Court of Appeals. Civil Cases The 100 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges of probate and have original jurisdiction in probate and estate matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction over such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, con-demnations under the authority of eminent domain, and foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the superior court. The district courts have original jurisdiction in juvenile proceedings, domestic relations cases, and petitions for involuntary commitment to a mental hospital, and are the "proper" courts for general civil cases where the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less. If the amount in controversy is $2,000 or less and the plaintiff in the case so requests, the chief district court judge may assign the case for initial hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates' decisions may be appealed to the district court. Trial by jury for civil cases is available in the district courts; appeal from the judgment of a district court in a civil case is to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The superior courts are the "proper" courts for trial of general civil cases where the amount in controversy is more than $10,000. Appeals from decisions of most administrative agencies are first within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in civil cases is to the Court of Appeals. The General Assembly, under G.S. 7A-37.1, has authorized statewide expansion of court-ordered, non-binding arbitration in certain civil actions where claims do not exceed $15,000. The parties' rights to trial de novo and jury trial are preserved. As of June 30, 1991, arbitration programs had been established in nine judi-cial districts. Statewide child custody and visitation mediation pro-grams are also being phased in upon authorization of the General Assembly (G.S. 7A-494). Unless the court grants a waiver, custody and visitation disputes must be referred to a mediator, who helps the parties reach a cooperative, nonadversarial resolution in the child's best interests. Any agreement reached is submitted to the court and, unless the court finds good reason for it not to, becomes a part of the court's order in the case. Issues not resolved by the mediation are reported by the mediator to the court. As of June 30, 1991, these mediation programs were operating in three judicial districts. 13 The Present Court System, Continued Administration The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of the other courts of the General Court of Justice." (G.S. 7A-32(b)). In addition to this grant of general supervisory power, the North Carolina General Statutes provide certain Judicial Department officials with specific powers and responsibilities for the operation of the court system. The Supreme Court has the responsibility for prescribing rules of practice and procedures for the appellate courts and for prescribing rules for the trial courts to supple-ment those prescribed by statute. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court designates one of the judges of the Court of Appeals to be its Chief Judge, who in turn is responsible for scheduling the sessions of the Court of Appeals. The chart following illustrates specific trial court administrative responsibilities vested in Judicial Depart-ment officials by statute. The Chief Justice appoints the Director and Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts; the Assistant Director also serves as the Chief Justice's administrative assistant. The schedule of sessions of superior court in the 100 counties is set by the Supreme Court; assignment of the State's rotating superior court judges is the responsibility of the Chief Justice. Finally, the Chief Justice designates a chief district court judge for each of the State's 37 district court districts from among the elected district court judges of the respective districts. These judges have responsibilities for the scheduling of the district courts and magistrates' courts within their respective districts, along with other administrative responsibilities. The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible for direction of non-judicial, administrative and business affairs of the Judicial Department. Included among its functions are fiscal management, personnel services, information and statistical services, supervision of record keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, liaison with the legislative and executive departments of government, court facility evaluation, purchase and contract, educa-tion and training, coordination of the program for provision of legal counsel to indigent persons, juvenile probation and aftercare, guardian ad litem services, trial court administrator services, planning, and general ad-ministrative services. The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk for both the superior and the district courts. Day-to-day calendaring of civil cases is handled by the clerk of superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in some districts, under the supervision of the senior resi-dent superior court judge and chief district court judge. The criminal case calendars in both superior courts and district courts are set by the district attorney of the respective district. 14 Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts CHIEF JUSTICE and SUPREME COURT 2 Administrative Office of the Courts (37) District Attorneys (44) Senior Resident Judges; (100) Clerks of Superior Court SUPERIOR COURTS (37) Chief District Court Judges DISTRICT COURTS 'The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other trial courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court judges, who rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice. 2The Director and the Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Chief Justice. 3The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other trial courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge from the judges elected in each of the 37 district court districts. 4The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the Judicial Department. 5The district attorney sets the criminal case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their respective courts. 6 In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping functions for both the superior court and the district court of the county. Magistrates, who serve under the supervision of the chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees submitted by the clerk of superior court. 15 THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA (As of June 30, 1991) Chief Justice JAMES G. EXUM, JR. Associate Justices LOUIS B. MEYER BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR. HARRY C. MARTIN HENRY E. FRYE JOHN WEBB WILLIS P. WHICHARD Retired Chief Justices WILLIAM H. BOBBITT SUSIE SHARP Retired Justices I. BEVERLY LAKE J. FRANK HUSKINS DAVID M. BRITT Clerk Christie Speir Price Librarian Louise H. Stafford Chief Justice Exum 16 THE SUPREME COURT At the apex of the North Carolina court system is the seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to consider and decide questions of law presented in civil and criminal cases on appeal. The Chief Justice and six associate justices are elected to eight-year terms by the voters of the State. The Court sits only en banc, that is, all members sitting on each case. Jurisdiction The only original case jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court is in the censure and removal of judges upon the non-binding recommendations of the Judicial Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jurisdic-tion includes: - cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals (cases involving substantial constitutional ques-tions and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals); - cases on appeal by right from the Utilities Com-mission (cases involving final order or decision in a general rate matter); - criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior courts (first degree murder cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to death or life imprisonment); and - cases in which review has been granted in the Supreme Court's discretion. Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly from the trial courts may be granted when delay would likely cause substantial harm or when the workload of the Appellate Division is such that the expeditious administration of justice requires it. However, most appeals are heard only after review by the Court of Appeals. Administration The Supreme Court has general power to supervise and control the proceedings of the other courts of the General Court of Justice. The Court has specific power to prescribe the rules of practice and procedure for the trial court divisions, consistent with any rules enacted by the General Assembly. The schedule of superior court sessions in the 100 counties is approved yearly by the Supreme Court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court, the Librarian of the Supreme Court Library, and the Appel-late Division Reporter are appointed by the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Assistant Director, who serve at the pleasure of the Chief Justice. He also designates a Chief Judge from among the judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief District Court Judge from among the district court judges in each of the State's 37 district court districts. He assigns superior court judges, who regularly rotate from district to district, to the scheduled sessions of superior court in the 100 counties, and he is also empowered to transfer district court judges to other districts for tem-porary or specialized duty. The Chief Justice appoints three of the seven members of the Judicial Standards Commission — a judge of the Court of Appeals who serves as the Commission's chairman, one superior court judge and one district court judge. The Chief Justice also appoints six of the 24 voting members of the North Carolina Courts Commission: one associate justice of the Supreme Court, one Court of Appeals judge, two superior court judges, and two district court judges. The Chief Justice also appoints the Appellate Defender, and the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings. Expenses of the Court, 1990-91 Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 1990-91 fiscal year amounted to $2,909,823. Expendi-tures for the Supreme Court during 1990-91 constituted 1 .4% of all General Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. Case Data, 1990-91 A total of 345 appealed cases were before the Supreme Court during the fiscal year, 156 that were pending on July 1, 1990, plus 189 cases filed through June 30, 1991. A total of 173 of these cases were disposed of, leaving 172 cases pending on June 30, 1991. A total of 578 petitions (requests to appeal) were before the Court during the 1990-91 year, with 498 disposed during the year and 80 pending as of June 30, 1991. The Court granted 53 petitions for review during 1990-91 compared to 106 for 1989-90. More detailed data on the Court's workload are presented on the following pages. 17 SUPREME COURT CASELOAD INVENTORY July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 Petitions for Review Civil domestic Juvenile Other civil Criminal Administrative agency decision Total Petitions for Review Appeals Civil domestic Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals Juvenile Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals Other civil Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals Criminal, defendant sentenced to death Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment Other criminal Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals Administrative agency decision Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative agency decision Total Appeals Other Proceedings Rule 16(b) additional issues re dissent Requests for advisory opinion Motions Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear Total Other Proceedings Pending Pending 7/1/90 Filed Disposed 6/30/91 4 26 24 6 1 5 5 1 58 247 246 59 16 191 194 13 7 23 29 1 86 492 498 80 2 5 2 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 32 29 40 35 35 34 37 30 35 25 21 39 30 35 33 32 7 12 22 9 15 13 14 8 6 8 8 6 2 6 6 2 156 189 173 172 2 17 554 5 8 554 4 11 1 576 566 12 18 APPEALS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 Other Civil 39.7% (75) Juvenile 1.1% (2) Other Criminal 16.4% (31) Criminal-Death 13.2% (25) Criminal-Life 18.5% (35) Admin. Agency 7.4% (14) Civil Domestic 3.7% (7) PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 Other Civil 50.2% (247) Juvenile 1.0% (5) Criminal 38.8% (191) Civil Domestic Admin. Agency 5.3% (26) 4.7% (23) 19 SUPREME COURT CASELOAD TYPES by Superior Court Division and District July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 Judicial Superior Court Total Death Life Other Civil Other Cases Division District Cases Cases Cases Criminal Cases Cases Disposed I 1 7 3 1 2 1 2 2 5 1 2 2 2 3A 7 1 1 2 3 3 3B 10 2 2 6 5 4A s 4 3 1 2 4B b 2 1 3 3 5 13 3 5 2 3 4 6A 6 4 2 1 6B 3 1 1 1 1 7A 2 1 I 1 7B-C 7 I 1 5 3 8A 3 3 1 8B 4 1 1 2 4 SUBTOTAL 81 21 21 17 22 32 II 9 7 1 1 1 4 5 10 53 7 3 1 15 27 27 11 13 1 3 2 7 3 12 12 3 I 4 4 8 13 8 2 3 1 2 3 14 10 2 2 4 2 3 15A 11 2 3 1 5 4 15B 10 2 2 5 1 4 16A 3 1 2 1 16B 13 5 5 3 4 SUBTOTAL 140 24 21 17 48 30 62 III 17A 5 2 2 1 3 17B 5 1 1 1 2 2 18 22 2 7 4 9 9 19A 1 1 1 19B 4 1 3 2 19C 3 2 1 1 20A X 2 1 5 4 20 B 1 1 1 21 29 1 5 4 18 1 13 22 9 5 1 3 6 23 5 1 3 1 3 SUBTOTAL 92 17 22 11 41 1 45 IV 24 6 1 5 25 A 5 2 I 2 2 25B 5 I 2 2 1 26 27 4 7 2 14 8 27A 5 1 1 3 4 27B 2 1 1 28 15 2 1 12 8 29 14 2 6 3 3 9 30A 7 2 1 1 3 1 30B 2 1 1 I SUBTOTAL 88 14 19 10 45 34 TOTALS 401 76 83 55 156 31 173 NOTE: Includes life & death sentence cases awaiting Record on Appeal and not yet formally docketed. 20 SUBMISSION OF CASES REACHING DECISION STAGE IN SUPREME COURT July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 Cases Argued Civil Domestic Juvenile Other Civil Criminal (death sentence) Criminal (life sentence) Other Criminal Administrative Agency Decision Total cases argued Submissions Without Argument By motion of the parties (Appellate Rule 30 (d)) By order of the Court (Appellate Rule 30 (f)) Total submissions without argument Total Cases Reaching Decision Stage 6 1 70 26 30 27 13 173 I 1 2 175 DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS BY THE SUPREME COURT July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 Granted* Denied 1 22 5 37 207 10 171 5 23 53 428 Petitions for Review Civil Domestic Juvenile Other Civil Criminal Administrative Agency Decision Total Petitions for Review Other Proceedings Rule 16(b) — Additional Issues Advisory Opinion Motions Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear Total Other Proceedings *"Granted" includes orders allowing relief without accepting the case as a full appeal. Dismissed/ Withdrawn 1 2 13 1 17 Total Disposed 24 5 246 194 29 498 8 554 4 566 21 DISPOSITION OF SUPREME COURT APPEALS July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Signed Opinions Reversed Total Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed Civil domestic I 3 4 Juvenile Other civil 11 2 6 15 2 36 Criminal (death sentence) 2 19 21 Criminal (life sentence) 25 6 31 Other criminal 7 1 4 4 1 17 Administrative agency decision 3 6 9 Totals 48 11 28 28 118 Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Opinions Reversed Total Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed Civil domestic 2 2 Juvenile Other civil 20 3 3 1 27 Criminal (death sentence) Criminal (life sentence) 1 1 Other criminal 6 1 7 Administrative agency decision 4 4 Totals 33 41 Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals by Dismissal or Withdrawal Case Types Dismissed or Withdrawn Civil domestic Juvenile Other civil Criminal (death sentence) Criminal (life sentence) Other criminal Administrative agency decision Totals 1 I 6 I 4 I 14 22 MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF APPEALS IN THE SUPREME COURT July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 Dismissed/Withdrawn 8.1% (14) Signed Opinions 68.2% (118) Per Curiam Opinions 23.7% (41) TYPE OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 Dismissed/Withdrawn 3.4% (17) Granted 10.6% (53) Denied 85.9% (428) 23 250 200 150 Number of Cases 100 NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT Appeals Docketed and Disposed During the Years 1985-86 -- 1990-91 50 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 H Appeals Docketed CJ Appeals Disposed 24 NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years 1985-86 -- 1990-91 800 700 600 500 lumber of 400 Cases 300 200 100 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 I Petitions Docketed LJ Petitions Allowed 1990-91 25 SUPREME COURT PROCESSING TIME FOR DISPOSED CASES (Total time in days from docketing to decision) July 1, 1990 — June 30, 1991 Number (Days) (Days) of Cases Median Mean Civil domestic Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals Juvenile Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals Other civil Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals Criminal, defendant sentenced to death Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment Other criminal Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals Administrative agency decision Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative agency decision Total appeals 6 250 251 1 309 309 1 121 121 35 226 249 34 256 304 21 483 557 33 309 349 15 210 215 13 273 346 8 287 372 6 279 265 73 287 327 26 THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA (As of June 30, 1991) Chief Judge R. A. HEDRICK GERALD ARNOLD HUGH A. WELLS CLIFTON E. JOHNSON EUGENE H. PHILLIPS SIDNEYS. EAGLES, JR. SARAH PARKER Judges JACK COZORT ROBERT F. ORR K. EDWARD GREENE JOHN B. LEWIS, JR. JAMES A. WYNN,JR. FRANK M. PARKER EDWARD B. CLARK ROBERT M. MARTIN Retired Judges CECIL J. HILL E. MAURICE BRASWELL Clerk FRANCIS E. DAIL Assistant Clerk JOHN H. CONNELL 27 THE COURT OF APPEALS The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the appeals originating from the State's trial courts. The Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other locations in the State as authorized by the Supreme Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regular or frequent. Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected by popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for the Court is designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the Chief Justice. Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the Chief Judge responsible for assigning members of the Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal number of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge presides over the panel of which he or she is a member and designates a presiding judge for the other panels. One member of the Court of Appeals, designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serves as chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission. cases). Appeals from the decisions of other administra-tive agencies lie first within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. In the event of a recommendation from the Judicial Standards Commission to censure or remove from office a justice of the Supreme Court, the non-binding recom-mendation would be considered by the Chief Judge and the six judges next senior in service on the Court of Appeals (excluding the judge who serves as the Commis-sion's chair). Such seven-member panel would have sole jurisdiction to act upon the Commission's recommen-dation. Expenses of the Court, 1990-91 Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during the 1990-91 fiscal year totaled $3,778,530. Expenditures for the Court of Appeals during 1990-91 amounted to 1.8% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. Jurisdiction The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals consists of cases appealed from the trial courts. The Court also hears appeals directly from the Industrial Commission, along with appeals from certain final orders or decisions of the North Carolina State Bar, the Com-missioner of Insurance, the Department of Human Re-sources, the Commissioner of Banks, the Administrator of Savings and Loans, the Governor's Waste Manage-ment Board, the Property Tax Commission, and the Utilities Commission (in cases other than general rate Case Data, 1990-91 A total of 1,325 appealed cases were filed before the Court of Appeals during the period July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991. A total of 1,414 cases were disposed of during the same period. During 1990-91, a total of 415 petitions and 1,295 motions were filed before the Court of Appeals. Further detail on the workload of the Court of Appeals is shown in the table and graph on the following pages. 28 FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 Cases on Appeal Filings Dispositions Civil cases appealed from district courts Civil cases appealed from superior courts Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies Criminal cases appealed from superior courts 238 581 72 434 Totals 1325 1,414 Petitions Allowed Denied Remanded 174 241 Totals 415 415 Motions Allowed Denied Remanded 905 390 Totals Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions, and Motions 1,295 3,035 1,295 3,124 MANNER OF CASE DISPOSITIONS -- COURT OF APPEALS July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 Cases Disposed by Written Opinion Cases Affirmed Cases Cases In Part, Reversed Other Cases Total Cases Affirmed Reversed In Part Disposed Disposed 962 199 102 151 1,414 2^ FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 1985-86 -- 1990-91 2.500 2,000 1,500 Number of Cases 1,000 500 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 H Filings LJ Dispositions Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed cases and petitions (but not motions) filed in the Court of Appeals. 30 ^ On ©2 u o en .«2 1 I— 5 a° P* 00 in M * ^ 2 Q r^ 1 U c c E 9 5U So 5 ^. 1 = 13 ©H 31 5 x. s W On •— o U en ts a .9 8 o-u © a. -ac 03 -a 1 o fa u y X < CO Q u CO On o (/I 3 O c CO u c CO u m Q •c o 8 13 CO Q c to O o t! u 1 3 3 O r > 3 ^^ CO o OS r ) g o U On •c CL, 'B o ' CO 05 05 tS) •c D. E o Q •c CO ha u 03 •c o 8 a C <u a- t3 E o CO eo > to o o -o <u •fi < eg On b ^ E > o co O 3O •c to 00 < u PQ is CO u Q a CO -n T3 o T rt c £ 3 HI u Cfl o O < P 3 cn (J o CO uu CO On CO U OO n 1 CO -a c CO 5 jj C £ s o " ( ) 3 £ ft ON U ^2 +> .a +^ 5 is o r1 u .. 0> o </5 en © (D cd o c - •mm & ou U o w c c u . — E P 21 o Z 2 >, ©s- 33 JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT (As of June 30, 1991) FIRST DIVISION District 1 *J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City 2 *William C. Griffin, Jr., Williamston 3A *David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville W. Russell Duke, Jr., Greenville 3B * Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City 4A * Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville 4B *James R. Strickland, Jacksonville 5 *Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington Ernest B. Fullwood, Wilmington Gary E. Trawick, Burgaw 6A *Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids 6B *Cy Anthony Grant, Sr., Windsor 7A *Quentin T. Sumner, Rocky Mount 7B G. K. Butterfield, Jr., Wilson 7C *Frank R. Brown, Tarboro 8A *James D. Llewellyn, Kinston 8B *Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro SECOND DIVISION 9 *Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg Henry W. Hight, Jr., Henderson 10A George R. Greene, Raleigh 10B *Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh IOC Narley L. Cashwell, Raleigh 10D Donald W. Stephens, Raleigh 1 1 *Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn Knox V. Jenkins, Four Oaks 12A Jack A. Thompson, Fayetteville 12B Gregory A. Weeks, Fayetteville 12C *Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville 13 *Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville 14A Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., Durham 14B *Anthony M. Brannon, Durham J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham A. Leon Stanback, Jr., Durham 15A *J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington 15B *F. Gordon Battle, Hillsborough 16A *B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg 16B * Joe Freeman Britt, Lumberton Dexter Brooks, Pembroke THIRD DIVISION District 17A *Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., Wentworth Peter M. McHugh, Wentworth 17B *James M. Long, Pilot Mountain 18A W. Steven Allen, Sr., Greensboro 18B Howard R. Greeson, Jr., Greensboro 18C *W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro 18D Thomas W. Ross, Greensboro 18E Joseph R. John, Greensboro 19A *James C. Davis, Concord I9B *Russell G. Walker, Jr., Asheboro 19C *Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer 20A *F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro James M. Webb, Southern Pines 20B *William H. Helms, Monroe 21 A William Z. Wood, Jr., Winston-Salem 21 B *Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem 21 C William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem 21 D James A. Beaty, Jr., Winston-Salem 22 *Preston Cornelius, Mooresville Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville 23 *Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro FOURTH DIVISION 24 *Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone 25A *Claude S. Sitton, Morganton Beverly T. Beal, Lenoir 25B *Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 26A Marcus L. Johnson, Charlotte Shirley L. Fulton, Charlotte 26B Julia V. Jones, Charlotte Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte 26C * Robert M. Burroughs, Sr., Charlotte Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte 27A *Robert W. Kirby, Gastonia Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia 27B *John Mull Gardner, Shelby 28 * Robert D. Lewis, Asheville C. Walter Allen, Asheville 29 *Zoro J. Guice, Rutherfordton Loto Greenlee Caviness, Marion 30A *James U. Downs, Franklin 30B *Janet M. Hyatt, Waynesville "Senior Resident Superior Court Judge of the district or "set of districts" 34 SPECIAL JUDGE OF SUPERIOR COURT Marvin K. Gray, Charlotte EMERGENCY AND RETIRED/RECALLED JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT (As of June 30, 1991) James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh George M. Fountain, Tarboro John R. Friday, Lincolnton Peter W. Hairston, Advance Darius B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville Hamilton H. Hobgood, Louisburg Harvey A. Lupton, Winston-Salem John D. McConnell, Pinehurst Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton L. Bradford Tillery, Wilmington Edward K. Washington, High Point The Conference of Superior Court Judges (Executive Committee as of June 30, 1991) Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown, President Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro, President- Elect F. Gordon Battle, Hillsborough, Vice-President E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville, Secretary-Treasurer J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City, Immediate Past- President Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg, and Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte, Ex Officio Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington, and Claude S. Sitton, Morganton, Additional Executive Committee Members Judge Giles R. Clark 35 THE SUPERIOR COURTS North Carolina's superior courts are the general juris-diction trial courts for the state. In 1990-91, there were 82 "resident" superior court judges elected by Statewide ballot to office for eight-year terms in the 60 superior court districts. In addition, one "special" superior court judge has been appointed by the Governor. Jurisdiction The superior court has original jurisdiction in all felony cases and in those misdemeanor cases specified under G.S. 7A-271. (Most misdemeanors are tried first in the district court, from which conviction may be appealed to the superior court for trial de novo by a jury. No trial by jury is available for criminal cases in district court.) The superior court is the proper court for the trial of civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds SI 0,000, and it has jurisdiction over appeals from admin-istrative agencies except for county game commissions, from which appeals are heard in district court, and from the Industrial Commission, the Commissioner of Insur-ance, the North Carolina State Bar, the Property Tax Commission, the Department of Human Resources, the Commissioner of Banks, the Administrator of Savings and Loans, the Governor's Waste Management Board, and the Utilities Commission. Appeals from these agen-cies lie directly to the North Carolina Court of Appeals (except for Utilities Commission general rate cases, which go directly to the Supreme Court). Regardless of the amount in controversy, the original civil jurisdiction of the superior court does not include domestic relations cases, which are heard in the district court, or probate and estates matters and certain special proceedings heard first by the clerk of superior court. Rulings of the clerk are within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. Administration The 100 counties in North Carolina are grouped into 60 superior court districts. Some superior court districts comprise one county; some comprise two or more counties; and the more populous counties are divided among a "set of districts," composed of two or more districts created for purposes of election of superior court judges. Each district has at least one resident superior court judge who has certain administrative responsibilities for his or her home district, such as providing for civil case calendaring procedures. (Crimi-nal case calendars are prepared by the district attorneys.) In districts or sets of districts with more than one resident superior court judge, the judge senior in service on the superior court bench exercises these supervisory powers. The superior court districts are grouped into four divisions for the rotation of superior court judges, as shown on the preceding superior court district map. Within the division, resident superior court judges are required to rotate among the superior court districts and hold court for at least six months in each, then move on to their next assignment. The special superior court judge may be assigned to hold court in any of the 100 counties. Assignments of all superior court judges are made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under the Constitution of North Carolina, at least two sessions (of one week each) of superior court are held annually in each of the 100 counties. The vast majority of counties have more than the constitutional minimum of two weeks of superior court annually. Many larger counties have superior court sessions about every week in the year. Expenditures A total of $19,102,345 was expended on the operations of the superior courts during the 1990-91 fiscal year. This included the salaries and travel expenses for the 83 superior court judges, and salaries and expenses for trial court administrators, court reporters and secretarial staff for superior court judges. Expenditures for the superior courts amounted to 9.2% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of the entire Judicial Depart-ment during the 1990-91 fiscal year. Caseload Including both civil and criminal cases, 135,419 cases were filed in the superior courts during 1990-91, an increase of 7,204 cases (5.6%) from the total of 128,215 cases that were filed in 1989-90. There were increases in filings in all case categories: civil cases (4.6%), felony cases (5.9%), and misdemeanor cases (5.7%). Superior court case dispositions increased from 117,787 in 1989-90 to 129,302 in 1990-91. Dispositions in all case types increased: civil cases (10.0%), felony cases (9.2%), and misdemeanor cases (10.6%). More detailed information on the flow of cases through the superior courts is included in Part IV of this Report. 36 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* (As of June 30, 1991) District 6A 6B Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City John R. Parker, Manteo Janice M. Cole, Hertford Hallett S. Ward, Washington Samuel G. Grimes, Washington James W. Hardison, Williamston E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville David A. Leech, Greenville Willie L. Lumpkin, III, Morehead City James E. Martin, Grifton James E. Ragan, III, Oriental George L. Wainwright, Morehead City Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill William M. Cameron, Jr., Jacksonville Wayne G. Kimble, Jr., Jacksonville Leonard W. Thagard, Clinton Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville Paul A. Hardison, Jacksonville Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington Charles E. Rice, III, Wilmington Elton Glenn Tucker, Wilmington John W. Smith, II, Wilmington W. Allen Cobb, Jr., Wilmington Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck Alfred W. Kwasikpui, Jackson Thomas R. Newbern, Aulander George Britt, Tarboro Allen W. Harrell, Wilson M. Alexander Biggs, Jr., Rocky Mount Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson Sarah F. Patterson, Rocky Mount Joseph J. Harper, Jr., Tarboro J. Patrick Exum, Kinston Kenneth R. Ellis, Goldsboro Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro Joseph E. Setzer, Jr., Goldsboro Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford H. Weldon Lloyd, Jr., Henderson J. Larry Senter, Franklinton Charles W. Wilkinson, Jr., Oxford District 10 George F. Bason, Raleigh Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh William A. Creech, Raleigh James R. Fullwood, Raleigh Joyce A. Hamilton, Raleigh Jerry W. Leonard, Raleigh Fred M. Morelock, Raleigh Louis W. Payne, Jr., Raleigh Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh Donald W. Overby, Raleigh Anne B. Salisbury, Raleigh 1 1 William A. Christian, Sanford Samuel S. Stephenson, Angier Edward H. McCormick, Lillington O. Henry Willis, Jr., Dunn Tyson Y. Dobson, Jr., Smithfield Albert A. Corbett, Jr., Smithfield 12 Sol G. Cherry, Fayetteville John S. Hair, Jr., Fayetteville James F. Ammons, Jr., Fayetteville A. Elizabeth Keever, Fayetteville Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Fayetteville Andrew R. Dempster, Fayetteville 13 D. Jack Hooks, Jr., Whiteville Jerry A. Jolly, Tabor City David G. Wall, Elizabethtown Napoleon B. Barefoot, Jr., Bolivia 14 Kenneth C. Titus, Durham Richard Chaney, Durham William Y. Manson, Durham Carolyn D. Johnson, Durham David Q. LaBarre, Durham 15A James K. Washburn, Burlington Spencer B. Ennis, Burlington Ernest J. Harviel, Burlington 15B Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill Lowry M. Betts, Pittsboro Stanley S. Peele, Chapel Hill 16A Warren L. Pate, Raeford William C. Mcllwain, III, Wagram 16B Charles G. McLean, Lumberton Robert F. Floyd, Jr., Fairmont J. Stanley Carmical, Lumberton Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton Gary L. Locklear, Pembroke *The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 37 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* (As of June 30, 1991) District 17A Robert R. Blackwell, Yanceyville Philip W. Allen, Yanceyville Janeice B. Tindal. Reidsville 17B Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy Clarence W. Carter, King Otis M. Oliver, Mount Airy 18 J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro Sherry F. Alloway, Greensboro Donald L. Boone, High Point William L. Daisy, Greensboro Edmund Lowe, High Point Lawrence C. McSwain, Greensboro Lhomas G. Foster, Jr., Greensboro William A. Vaden, Greensboro Joseph E. Turner, Greensboro Ben D. Haines, Greensboro 19A Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis 19B William M. Neely, Asheboro Richard M. Toomes, Asheboro Vance B. Long, Asheboro 19C Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury Anna Mills Wagoner, Salisbury 20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro Michael E. Beale, Pinehurst Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle Kenneth W. Honeycutt, Monroe Tanya T. Wallace, Rockingham Susan C. Taylor, Albemarle 21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem Loretta C. Biggs, Kernersville James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem Roland H. Hayes, Winston-Salem Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem William B. Reingold, Winston-Salem Margaret L. Sharpe, Winston-Salem 22 Robert W. Johnson, Statesville Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville George T. Fuller, Lexington Kimberly T. Harbinson, Taylorsville James M. Honeycutt, Lexington Jessie A. Conley, Statesville 23 Samuel L. Osborne, Wilkesboro Edgar B. Gregory, Wilkesboro Michael E. Helms, Wilkesboro District 24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk 25 L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory Ronald E. Bogle, Hickory Robert E. Hodges, Morganton Jonathan L. Jones, Valdese Timothy S. Kincaid, Newton Nancy L. Einstein, Lenoir Robert M. Brady, Lenoir 26 James E. Lanning, Charlotte Marilyn R. Bissell, Charlotte L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte Richard A. Elkins, Charlotte H. Brent McKnight, Charlotte Resa L. Harris, Charlotte Jane V. Harper, Charlotte William G. Jones, Charlotte H. William Constangy, Jr., Charlotte William H. Scarborough, Charlotte Richard D. Boner, Charlotte Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte 27A Larry B. Langson, Gastonia Daniel J. Walton, Gastonia Harley B. Gaston, Jr., Belmont Timothy L. Patti, Gastonia Catherine C. Stevens, Gastonia 27B George W. Hamrick, Shelby James T. Bowen, III, Lincolnton J. Keaton Fonvielle, Shelby James W. Morgan, Shelby 28 Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden Gary S. Cash, Fletcher Rebecca B. Knight, Asheville Peter L. Roda, Asheville Shirley H. Brown, Asheville 29 Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville Steven F. Franks, Hendersonville Robert S. Cilley, Brevard Donald F. Coats, Marion 30 John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy Steven J. Bryant, Bryson City Danny E. Davis, Waynesville The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 38 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES The Association of District Court Judges (Officers as of June 30, 1991) L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory, President Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill, Vice-President Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy, Secretary-Treasurer Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston Warren L. Pate, Raeford A. Elizabeth Keever, Fayetteville Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City Lawrence C. McSwain, Greensboro L. Stanly Brown, Charlotte Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Fayetteville Additional Executive Committee Members Judge L. Oliver Noble 39 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 179 district court judges serving in 37 district court districts during 1990-9 1 . These judges are elected to four-year terms by the voters of their respective districts. A total of 659 magistrate positions were authorized as of June 30. 1991. Of this number, about 60 positions were specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nomina-tions submitted by the clerk of superior court of their county, and they are supervised by the chief district court judge of their district. Jurisdiction The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtual-ly all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary com-mitments and recommitments to mental health hospitals, and domestic relations cases. Effective September 1, 1986. the General Assembly decriminalized many minor traffic offenses. Such offenses, previously charged as misdemeanors, are now- "infractions," defined as non-criminal violations of law not punishable by imprison-ment. The district court division has original jurisdiction for all infraction cases. The district courts have con-current jurisdiction with the superior courts in general civil cases, but the district courts are the proper courts for the trial of civil cases where the amount in contro-versy is SI 0,000 or less. Upon the plaintiffs request, a civil case in which the amount in controversy is $2,000 or less, may be designated a "small claims" case and assigned by the chief district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magistrates are empowered to try worthless check criminal cases as directed by the chief district court judge when the value of the check does not exceed SI,000. In addition, they may accept written appearances, waivers of trial, and pleas of guilty in certain littering cases, and in worthless check cases when the amount of the check is SI,000 or less, the offender has made restitution, and the offender has fewer than four previous worthless check convictions. Magistrates may accept waivers of appearance and pleas of guilty or admissions of responsibility in misdemeanor or infraction cases involving traffic, alcohol, boating, hunting and fishing violation cases, for which a uniform schedule of fines has been adopted by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges. Magistrates also conduct initial hearings to fix conditions of release for arrested defendants, and they are empowered to issue arrest and search warrants. Administration A chief district court judge is appointed for each district court district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from among the elected judges in the respective districts. Subject to the Chief Justice's general super-vision, each chief judge exercises administrative super-vision and authority over the operation of the district courts and magistrates in the district. Each chief judge is responsible for scheduling sessions of district court and assigning judges, supervising the calendaring of non-criminal cases, assigning matters to magistrates, making arrangements for court reporting and jury trials in civil cases, and supervising the discharge of clerical functions in the district courts. The chief district court judges meet in conference at least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual con-ference adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses and fines for their violation for use by magistrates and clerks of court in accepting defendants' waivers of appearance, guilty pleas, and admissions of responsibility. Expenditures Total expenditures for the operation of the district courts in 1990-91 amounted to $37,918,302. Included in this total are the personnel costs of court reporters and secretaries as well as the personnel costs of the 179 district court judges and 659 magistrates. The 1990-91 total for the district courts is 18.2% of the General Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial Department, compared to a 17.4% share of total Judicial Department expenditures in the 1989-90 fiscal year. Caseload During 1990-91 the statewide total number of district court filings (civil and criminal) decreased by 17,108 cases (0.8%) from the total number reported for 1989-90. Not including juvenile proceedings and mental health hospital commitment hearings, 2,253,348 total cases were filed in 1990-91, compared to 2,270,456 total filings in 1989-90. This was the first time that total district court filings have decreased since 1981-82. The overall decrease is attributable to decreases in criminal motor vehicle, infraction, and civil magistrate filings. Considering criminal motor vehicle and infraction cases together, there was a decrease of 20,623 cases (1.8%) from the number of such cases filed in 1989-90. Filings of civil magistrate cases decreased by 13,363 (4.6%) from the number filed in 1989-90. Criminal non-motor vehicle case filings increased by 1.2% (6,958 cases) during 1990- 91, and domestic relations case filings increased by 10.6% (8,191 cases), above the numbers of these cases filed during 1989-90. 40 The District Courts, Continued The Conference of Chief District Court Judges (Officers as of June 30, 1991) Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids, President George W. Hamrick, Shelby, Vice-President J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro, Secretary-Treasurer Judge Nicholas Long 41 DISTRICT ATTORNEYS (As of June 30, 1991) Prosecutorial District 1 H. P. WILLIAMS, JR., Elizabeth City 2 MITCHELL D. NORTON, Washington 3A THOMAS D. HAIGWOOD, Greenville 3B W. DAVID McFADYEN, JR., New Bern 4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, Jacksonville 5 JERRY L. SPIVEY, Wilmington 6A W. ROBERT CAUDLE, II, Halifax 6B DAVID H. BEARD, JR., Murfreesboro 7 HOWARD S. BONEY, JR., Tarboro 8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro 9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford 10 C. COLON WILLOUGHBY, JR., Raleigh 1 1 THOMAS H. LOCK, Smithfield 12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 13 REX GORE, Bolivia 14 RONALD L. STEPHENS, Durham 15A STEVE A. BALOG, Graham 15B CARL R. FOX, Pittsboro 16A JEAN E. POWELL, Raeford Prosecutorial District 16B JOHN R. TOWNSEND, Lumberton 17A THURMAN B. HAMPTON, Wentworth 17B JAMES L. DELLINGER, JR., Dobson 18 HORACE M. KIMEL, JR., Greensboro 19A WILLIAM D. KENERLY, Concord 19B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro 20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe 21 THOMAS J. KEITH, Winston-Salem 22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington 23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboi 24 JAMES THOMAS RUSHER, Boone 25 ROBERT E. THOMAS, Newton 26 PETER S. GILCHRIST, Charlotte 27A MICHAEL K. LANDS, Gastonia 27B WILLIAM C. YOUNG, Shelby 28 RONALD L. MOORE, Asheville 29 ALAN C. LEONARD, Rutherfordton 30 CHARLES W. HIPPS, Waynesville 42 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS The Conference of District Attorneys (Executive Committee as of June 30, 1991) W. David McFadyen, Jr. , President C. Colon Willoughby, Jr. , President- Elect Horace M. Kimel, Jr., Vi ce- President H. P. Williams, Jr. Ronald L. Stephens Thomas D. Haigwood Calvin B. Hamrick H. W. Zimmerman, Jr. The District Attorneys Association (Officers as of June 30, 1991) W. David McFadyen, Jr., New Bern, President C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., Raleigh, President- Elect Horace M. Kimel, Jr., Greensboro, Vice-President Carolyn Brady, Beaufort, Secretary-Treasurer District Attorney W. David McFadyen, Jr. 43 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS The State is divided into 37 prosecutorial districts which, with two exceptions, correspond to the 37 district court districts. The counties in District Court District 3 make up two separate prosecutorial districts, Prosecu-torial Districts 3A and 3B. The counties in District Court Districts 19A and 19C comprise single Prosecu-torial District 19A. Prosecutorial Districts are shown on the map in Part II of this Report. A district attorney is elected by the voters in each of the 37 districts for four-year terms. Duties The district attorney represents the State in all criminal actions brought in the superior and district courts in the district, and is responsible for ensuring that infraction cases are prosecuted efficiently. In addition to prosecu-torial functions, the district attorney is responsible for calendaring criminal cases for trial. Resources Each district attorney may employ on a full-time basis the number of assistant district attorneys authorized by statute for the district. As of June 30, 1 99 1 , a total of 257 assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 37 prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District 26 (Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff (20 assistants) and the district attorney of three districts (Districts 6A, 6B, and 16 A) had the smallest staff (two assistants). Each district attorney is authorized to employ an administrative assistant to aid in preparing cases for trial and to expedite the criminal court docket. The district attorney in 18 districts is authorized to employ an investigatorial assistant who aids in the investigation of cases prior to trial. All district attorneys are authorized to employ at least one victim and witness assistant. Expenditures A total of $24,021,147 was expended in 1990-91 for the 37 district attorney offices. In addition, a total of SI 10,716 was expended for the District Attorney's Con-ference and its staff. 1990-91 Caseload A total of 115,099 criminal cases were filed in the superior courts during 1990-91, consisting of 73,908 felony cases and 41,191 misdemeanor cases; all but 7,121 of the misdemeanors were appeals from the district courts. The total number of criminal filings in the superior courts in 1989-90 was 108,784. The increase of 6,315 cases in 1990-91 represents a 5.8% increase over the 1989-90 total. A total of 109,572 criminal cases were disposed of in the superior courts during 1 990-9 1 . There were 69,8 1 3 felony dispositions, and 39,759 misdemeanor dispositions. In 1990-91, total criminal case dispositions increased by 9,714 cases (9.7%) over the 99,858 cases disposed of in 1989-90. The median ages of criminal cases at disposition in the superior courts during 1990-91 were 96 days for felony cases and 83 days for misdemeanor cases. In 1989-90, the median age of felony cases at disposition was 86 days, and the median age at disposition for misdemeanor cases was 76 days. The number of criminal cases disposed of by jury trial in the superior courts decreased from 3,093 in 1989-90 to 2,959 in 1990-91, a decrease of 4.3%. As in past years, the proportion of total criminal cases disposed by jury was small, 3.1% in 1989-90 compared to 2.7% in 1990-91. However, the relatively small number of cases disposed by jury requires a great proportion of the superior court time and resources devoted to handling the criminal caseload. In contrast, in 1990-91 a majority (59,605 or 54.4%) of criminal case dispositions in superior courts were pro-cessed on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a trial. This percentage represents a small increase from the proportion of guilty plea dispositions reported for 1989-90(53.9%). "Dismissal by district attorney" accounted for a signif-icant percentage of all criminal case dispositions in superior courts during 1990-91, a total of 32,625 cases, or 29.8% of all dispositions. This proportion is compar-able to that reported for prior years. Many of the dismissals involved the situation of two or more cases pending against the same defendant, where the defendant pleads guilty to some charges and other charges are dismissed. The total number of criminal cases filed in the superior courts during 1990-91 was 5,527 cases greater than the total number of cases disposed during the year. Conse-quently, the number of criminal cases pending in superior court increased from 43,065 at the beginning of the fiscal year, to a total pending at year's end of 48,592, an increase of 12.8%. The median age of felony cases pending in the superior courts increased from 96 days on June 30, 1990, to 110 days on June 30, 1991. The median age of pending mis-demeanor cases increased from 93 days on June 30, 1990, to 100 days on June 30, 1991. In the district courts, 1,755,988 criminal cases and infractions were filed during 1990-91. This total consisted of 493,974 criminal motor vehicle cases, 651,728 infrac-tion cases, and 610,286 criminal non-motor vehicle cases. A comparison of total filings in 1990-91 with total filings in 1989-90 (1,769,653) reveals a small decrease (0.8%) in district court criminal and infraction filings (13,665 cases). Filings of criminal non-motor vehicle cases increased by 6,958 cases (1.2%), from 603,328 cases in 1989-90 to 610,286 cases in 1990-91. Filings of motor 44 The District Attorneys, Continued vehicle plus infraction cases decreased by 20,623 cases (1.8%), from 1,166,325 in 1989-90 to 1,145,702 in 1990-91. Total dispositions of motor vehicle and infraction cases in the district courts amounted to 1,147,659 cases during 1990-91 (486,812 motor vehicle dispositions and 660,847 infraction dispositions). As in prior years, a sub-stantial portion of such cases are disposed by waiver of appearance and entry of pleas of guilty (or "responsibil-ity" in infraction cases) before a clerk or magistrate. During 1990-91, 485,218 motor vehicle and infraction cases (42.3%) were disposed by waiver. This substantial number of cases did not, of course, require action by the district attorneys' offices and should not be regarded as having been a part of the district attorneys' caseload. The remaining 662,441 infraction and motor vehicle cases (271,786 infraction and 390,655 motor vehicle cases) were disposed by means other than waiver. This balance was 29,154 cases (or 4.6%) more than the 633,287 non-waiver motor vehicle and infraction dispo-sitions in 1989-90. With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case dispositions, 605,286 such cases were disposed of in district courts in 1990-91. As with superior court criminal cases, the most frequent method of disposition was by entry of guilty plea; the next most frequent was dismissal by the district attorney. A total of 210,370 cases, or 34.8% of the dispositions were by guilty pleas. An addi-tional 1 80,6 1 8 cases, or 29.8% of the total were disposed of by prosecutor dismissal. The remaining cases were disposed of by waiver (10.1%), trial (6.8%), as a felony probable cause matter (10.8%), or by other means (7.7%). During 1990-91, the median age at disposition of criminal non-motor vehicle cases was 34 days, about the same as the median age at disposition for these cases in 1989-90, 33 days. During 1990-91, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle cases in the district courts exceeded dispositions by 5,000 cases. The number of non-motor vehicle criminal cases pending at year's end was 1 3 1 ,9 1 8, compared with a total of 126,918 that were pending at the beginning of the year, an increase of 3.9% in the number of pending cases. The median age for pending non-motor vehicle cases was 65 days on June 30, 1991, the same as on June 30, 1990. Additional information on the criminal caseloads in superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this Report. 45 CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT (As of June 30, 1991) COUNTY CLERK OF COURT COUNTY Alamance Louise B. Wilson Johnston Alexander Seth Chapman Jones Alleghany Rebecca J. Gambill Lee Anson R. Frank Hightower Lenoir Ashe Jerry L. Roten Lincoln Avery Robert F. Taylor Macon Beaufort Thomas S. Payne, III Madison Bertie John Tyler Martin Bladen Hilda H. Coleman McDowell Brunswick Diana R. Morgan Mecklenburg Buncombe Robert H. Christy, Jr. Mitchell Burke Iva C. Rhoney Montgomery Cabarrus Estus B. White Moore Caldwell Jeanette Turner Nash Camden Catherine W. McCoy New Hanover Carteret Darlene Leonard Northampton Caswell Janet H. Cobb Onslow Catawba Barbara M. Towery Orange Chatham Janice Oldham Pamlico Cherokee Rose Mary Crooke Pasquotank Chowan Marjorie H. Hollowell Pender Clay James H. McClure Perquimans Cleveland Linda C. Thrift Person Columbus Lacy R. Thompson Pitt Craven Jean W. Boyd Polk Cumberland George T. Griffin Randolph Currituck Sheila R. Doxey Richmond Dare Betty Mann Robeson Davidson Martha S. Nicholson Rockingham Davie Kenneth D. Boger Rowan Duplin John A. Johnson Rutherford Durham James Leo Carr Sampson Edgecombe Carol A. White Scotland Forsyth Frances P. Storey Stanly Franklin Ralph S. Knott Stokes Gaston Betty B. Jenkins Surry Gates Terry L. Riddick Swain Graham Vicki L. Teem Transylvania Granville Mary Ruth C. Nelms Tyrrell Greene Joyce L. Harrell Union Guilford Estie C. Bennington Vance Halifax Ellen C. Neathery Wake Harnett Georgia Lee Brown Warren Haywood William G. Henry Washington Henderson Thomas H. Thompson Watauga Hertford Shirley G. Johnson Wayne Hoke Juanita Edmund Wilkes Hyde Lenora R. Bright Wilson Iredell Betty J. Baity Yadkin Jackson Frank Watson, Jr. Yancey CLERK OF COURT Will R. Crocker Ronald H. Metts Lucille H. York Claude C. Davis Pamela C. Huskey Anna I. Carson James W. Cody Phyllis G. Pearson Ruth B. Williams Martha H. Curran Linda D. Woody Charles M. Johnson Rachel H. Comer Rachel M. Joyner Brenda A. Haraldson David C. Bridgers Edward T. Cole, Sr. Shirley L. James Mary Jo Potter Frances W. Thompson Frances D. Basden Lois G. Godwin W. Thomas Humphries Sandra Gaskins Judy P. Arledge Lynda B. Skeen Catherine S. Wilson Dixie I. Barrington Frankie C. Williams Edward P. Norvell Keith H. Melton Charlie T. McCullen C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr. David R. Fisher William F. Southern, Jr. Patricia C. Todd Sara Robinson Marian M. McMahon Nathan T. Everett Nola H. McCollum Lucy Longmire John M. Kennedy Richard E. Hunter, Jr. Timothy L. Spear John T. Bingham David B. Brantly Wayne Roope John L. Whitley Harold J. Long F. Warren Hughes 46 THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT Association of Clerks of Superior Court (Officers as of June 30, 1991) Judy P. Arledge, Polk County President C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr., Scotland County First Vice-President Georgia Lee Brown, Harnett County Second Vice-President Thomas H. Thompson, Henderson County Secretary Richard E. Hunter, Jr., Warren County Treasurer Judy P. Arledge 47 THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for a four-year term by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 counties. The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide special proceedings and is, ex officio, judge of probate, in addition to performing record-keeping and adminis-trative functions for both the superior and district courts of the county. Jurisdiction The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court includes the probate of wills and administration of decedents' estates. It also includes such "special proceed-ings" as adoptions, condemnations of private property under the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings to establish boundaries, foreclosures, and certain pro-ceedings to administer the estates of minors and incom-petent adults. The right of appeal from the clerks' judgments in such cases lies to the superior court. The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and other process necessary to execute the judgments entered in the superior and district courts of the county. For certain offenses and infractions, the clerk is authorized to accept defendants' waivers of appearance and pleas of guilty or admissions of responsibility and to impose penalties or fines in accordance with a schedule estab-lished by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges. Administration The clerk of superior court performs administrative duties for both the superior and district courts of the county. Among these duties are the maintenance of court records and indexes, the control and accounting of funds, and the furnishing of information to the Adminis-trative Office of the Courts. In most counties, the clerk continues to perform certain functions related to preparation of civil case calendars, and in many counties, the clerk's staff assists the district attorney in preparing criminal case calendars as well. Policy and oversight responsibility for civil case calendaring is vested in the State's senior resident super-ior court judges and chief district court judges. However, day-to-day civil calendar preparation is the clerk's responsibility in all districts except those served by trial court administrators. Expenditures A total of $63,509,953 was expended in 1990-91 for the operation of the 100 clerk of superior court offices. In addition to the salaries and other expenses of the clerks and their staffs, this total includes expenditures for jurors' fees and witness expenses. Total expenditures for clerk's offices in 1990-91 amounted to 30.5% of the General Fund expenditures for the operations of the entire Judicial Department. 1990-91 Caseload During 1990-91, estate case filings totaled 46,735, which was a slight decrease (0.2%) from the 46,832 estate cases filed in 1989-90. Estate case dispositions totaled 45,920 in 1990-91, or 1.3% more than the previous year's total of 45,330. A total of 49,689 special proceedings were filed before the 100 clerks of superior court in 1990-91. This is an increase of 1,947 cases (4.1%) from the 47,742 filings in the previous fiscal year. Special proceedings dispositions totaled 42,783, 9.2% more than the previous year's total of 39,171. The clerks of superior court are also responsible for handling the records of all case filings and dispositions in the superior and district courts. The total number of superior court case filings during the 1990-91 year was 135,419 (not including estates and special proceedings), and the total number of district court filings, not including juvenile proceedings and mental health hospi-tal commitment hearings, was 2,253,348. More detailed information on the estates and special proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this Report. 4X THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS July 1,1990- June 30, 1991 As part of the unified judicial system, the N.C. Consti-tution (Article IV, Section 15) provides for "an adminis-trative office of the courts to carry out the provisions of this Article." The General Assembly has established the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) as the admin-istrative arm of the Judicial Branch. The Director of the AOC (also referred to as the Administrative Officer of the Courts) is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Director has the duty to carry out the many functions and responsibilities assigned by statute to the Director or to the AOC. The Assistant Director of the AOC is also appointed by the Chief Justice, and serves as the administrative assistant to the Chief Justice. The duties of the Assistant Director include assisting the Chief Justice regarding assignment of superior court judges, assisting the Supreme Court in preparing calendars of superior court sessions, and performing such other duties as may be assigned by the Chief Justice or the Director of the AOC. The basic responsibility of the AOC is to maintain an efficient and effective court system by providing adminis-trative support statewide for the courts and for court-related offices. Among the AOC's specific duties are to establish fiscal policies for and prepare and administer the budget of the Judicial Branch; prescribe uniform admin-istrative and business methods, forms, and records to be used by the clerks of superior court statewide; procure and distribute equipment, books, forms, and supplies for the court system; collect, compile, and publish statistical data and other information on the judicial and financial operations of the courts and related offices; determine the state of the dockets, evaluate the practices and procedures of the courts, and make recommendations for improve-ment of the operations of the court system; investigate, make recommendations concerning, and provide assist-ance to county authorities regarding the securing of adequate physical facilities for the courts; administer the payroll and other personnel-related needs of all Judicial Branch employees; carry out administrative duties relat-ing to programs for representation for indigents; arrange for the printing and distribution of the published opinions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals; and perform numerous other duties and responsibilities, including production of this Annual Report. The AOC is organized into eight divisions plus an Office of Legal Counsel and an Administrator of special projects. The operations of the Juvenile Services Division, relating to juvenile probation and aftercare, and the Office of Guardian ad Litem Services, relating to provi-sion of guardians ad litem for juveniles, are summarized on following pages of this Report. The Office of Legal Counsel advises and assists the Director of the AOC with contractual and other legal matters affecting the AOC and court operations, and with review of and recommendations concerning legislation that may impact the courts. The Court Services Division identifies, develops, imple-ments, and administers programs and procedures for supporting the day-to-day administrative operations of the trial courts in all 100 counties. Court offices and programs supported by the Court Services Division include the clerks of superior court, trial court admin-istrators, court reporters, indigency screeners, and alter-native dispute resolution programs. Among its other activities, the Court Services Division has primary responsibility for the maintenance and distribution of forms, and develops procedures and provides technical assistance in such areas as jury management, case calen-daring and monitoring, facility planning, training pro-grams, and records management, including the micro-filming and archiving of records. The Fiscal Services Division assists the Director of the AOC with preparation and management of the budget for the entire Judicial Branch. This Division's responsibilities include collecting, processing, and disbursing all Judicial Branch funds, including court costs and fees, indigents' attorney fee payments and judgments, and sales of equip-ment and publications; processing the payrolls of all Judicial Branch employees; and developing and imple-menting accounting and auditing systems. The Information Services Division (ISD) plans for, budgets for, and administers the> information processing needs of the Judicial Branch. Its organizational mission is to provide comprehensive data processing, communica-tions, and decision support to the court system statewide. ISD operates the AOC's Raleigh-based mainframe com-puter and develops and maintains the automated Court Information System (CIS). The CIS consists of computer-based systems that assist the trial courts in high-volume work areas, including civil indexing, criminal and infrac-tion case processing, child support enforcement, cash receipting, and financial management. A rapidly growing part of automation improvement efforts is that of data-sharing across governmental agencies, including the Division of Criminal Information, State Highway Patrol, and Division of Motor Vehicles. Other ISD services include operating a 24-hour help desk, developing soft-ware, configuring and integrating local area networks and microcomputer workstations, operating data circuit and voice/ telephone networks, and providing systems main-tenance statewide. ISD also maintains the AOC's Statis-tical Reporting System, using statistics from the CIS to prepare and distribute periodic and special case manage-ment reports to court officials, including the case data reported in this Annual Report. The Personnel Division administers the salary, benefits, and other personnel-related affairs of the Judicial Branch, 49 The Administrative Office of the Courts, Continued makes recommendations to the Director of the AOC concerning the pay scales and classification of employees, conducts or arranges for training of the AOC employees and managers, and carries out numerous other duties to enhance the recruitment, retention, productivity, and satisfaction of the AOC and other Judicial Branch employees. The Purchasing Services Division procures all equip-ment, supplies, law books, publications, printing, binding, and contractual and other services for the Judicial Branch. The responsibilities of the Purchasing Services Division include oversight of the competitive bidding system in coordination with the Department of Adminis-tration, administration of Judicial Branch mail and telecommunication services, management of the AOC print shop, maintenance of the AOC fixed asset system, and contracting for and handling of services for equip-ment maintenance. The Research and Planning Division evaluates the practices, procedures, operations, and organization of the court system, and makes recommendations to the Direc-tor of the AOC regarding how the court system might best respond to present and future needs. On request of the AOC Director, the Research and Planning Division eval-uates the impact of proposed legislation or other propo-sals that may impact court operations, provides assistance and oversight for the production of AOC publications, and provides assistance to the counties in the evaluation of and planning for adequate physical facilities. The Research and Planning Division also provides support for the AOC-wide preparation and administration of grants. The Special Projects Administrator, in coordination with other AOC divisions, develops, implements and manages special studies or projects in diverse areas of court operations, as requested by the Director of the AOC. A total of $1 1,207,704 was expended for AOC opera-tions during 1990-91, representing 5.4% of total Judicial Branch expenditures. Of the total $11,207,704, 46.2% ($5,178,352) was expended for the purchase and opera-tion of computer equipment, management of automated systems, and operating expenses of the Information Services Division. The remaining 53.8% ($6,029,352) of total AOC expenditures was for other AOC operations, including a total of $429,634 for operation of the AOC warehouse and print shop. Administrative Office of the Courts (As of June 30, 1991) Franklin Freeman, Jr., Director Dallas A. Cameron, Jr., Assistant Director W. Robert Atkinson, Assistant to the Director Diane Divine, Executive Assistant Division Administrators: Thomas J. Andrews, Counsel Daniel Becker, Court Services Christopher A. Marks, Fiscal Services Ilene Nelson, Guardian ad Litem Services Francis J. Taillefer, Information Services Thomas A. Danek, Juvenile Services Ivan Hill, Personnel Services Douglas Pearson, Purchasing Services Rick Kane and LeAnn Wallace, Research and Planning John Taylor, Special Projects Franklin Freeman, Jr. 50 JUVENILE SERVICES DIVISION The Juvenile Services Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts provides intake, probation and aftercare services to juveniles who are before the District Courts for delinquent matters, i.e., violations of the criminal code, including motor vehicle violations, and for undisciplined matters, such as running away from home, being truant, and being beyond the parents' disciplinary control. Intake is the screening of complaints alleging delin-quent or undisciplined behavior by children, to deter-mine whether petitions should be filed. During the 1990- 91 fiscal year a total of 33,161 complaints were brought to the attention of intake counselors. Of this number, 22,921 (69%) were approved for filing, and 10,240(31%) were not approved for filing. Probation and aftercare refer to supervision of chil-dren in their own communities. Probation is authorized by judicial order. Aftercare service is provided for juveniles after their release from a training school. (Protective supervision is also a form of court-ordered supervision within the community; this service is com-bined with probation and aftercare.) In 1990-91 a total of 14,433 juveniles were supervised in the probation and aftercare program. Expenditures The Juvenile Services Division is State-funded. The expenditures for fiscal year 1990-91 totaled $14,507,797. The 1990-91 expenditures amounted to 7.0% of all General Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial Department, compared to 6.5% in 1989-90. Administration The Administrator of the Juvenile Services Division is appointed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. A chief court counselor is appointed for each judicial district by the Administrator of the Juvenile Services Division, with the approval of the Chief District Court Judge and the Administrative Officer of the Courts. Subject to the Administrator's general super-vision, each chief court counselor exercises administra-tive supervision over the operation of the court coun-seling services in the respective districts. Juvenile Services Division Staff (As of June 30, 1991) Thomas A. Danek, Administrator Nancy C. Patteson, Area Administrator Edward F. Taylor, Area Administrator John T. Wilson, Area Administrator Rex B. Yates, Area Administrator M. Harold Rogerson, Jr., Program Specialist Arlene J. Kincaid, Administrative Officer 51 JUVENILE SERVICES DIVISION (As of June 30, 1991) District Court District Chief Court Counselors District Court District Chief Court Counselors 1 Donald Alexander : Joseph A. Paul 3 Everlena C. Rogers 4 George Ashley 5 Phyllis Roebuck 6A John R. Brady bB Archie Snipes 7 Pamela Honeycutt s Lynn C. Sasser 9 Sherman Wilson 10 Larry C. Dix 11 Henry C. Cox 12 Phil T. Utley 13 Jimmy E. Godwin 14 (vacant) 15A Harry L. Derr 15B Donald Hargrove 16A Alfred Bridges 16B Carey Collins 17A Charles Barton 17B Jack H. Moore, Jr. 18 J. Manley Dodson 19A Verne Brady and 19C James C. Queen 20 Jimmy L. Craig 21 James J. Weakland 22 Carl T. Duncan 23 C. Wayne Dixon 24 K. Wayne Arnold 25 Lee Cox 26 James A. Yancey 27A Charles Reeves 27B Gloria Newman 28 Louis Parrish 29 Kenneth E. Lanning 30 Betty G. Alley NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF COURT COUNSELORS (Officers for 1990-91) Executive Committee Members Richard Alligood, President E. Blake Belcher, President- Elect Marilynn Sproull, Secretary Karen Jones, Treasurer Donald Hargrove, Parliamentarian Board Members 1988-91 Kathy Dudley Martha Lauten Wayne Arnold 1989-92 Joan Blanchard Ken Cooke Donald Roberts 1990-93 Randall Graham Karen McDonald Timothy Montgomery Richard Alligood 52 OFFICE OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM SERVICES Program Services When a petition alleging abuse or neglect of a juvenile is filed in district court, the judge appoints a trained volunteer guardian ad litem and an attorney advocate to work together to represent the child's best interests. The attorney protects the child's legal rights while ensuring that the volunteer guardian has appropriate access to the court process. The trained volunteer investigates the child's situation and works with the attorney to report the child's needs to the court and to make recommen-dations for case disposition and any necessary continuing supervision until court intervention is no longer required. During 1990-91, a total of 1,817 volunteers were active in the North Carolina program and represented a total of 10,387 abused and neglected children. These volunteers participated in 13,660 court hearings and gave approxi-mately 167,700 volunteer hours to casework and training in the State's guardian ad litem program. Expenditures During 1990-91, total expenditures for the guardian ad litem program amounted to $2,848,147. Of this amount, $847,823 was for program attorney fees and $2,000,324 was for program administration. The total included reimbursement of volunteers' expense of $93,896 (covering 138,060 casework hours for 10,387 abused and neglected children). In 1989-90, there were 1,511 volun-teers representing 8,161 children and providing 119,871 casework hours with reimbursement expenses of $98,810. Committee to work with the Administrator, who is responsible for planning and directing the guardian ad litem services program throughout the State. The Administrator is assisted by three regional admin-istrators, each of whom supervises the development and implementation of services for a group of districts, directing the local program, providing assistance in training programs for volunteers, and resolving opera-tional problems in the districts. A district administrator is employed for 32 of the State's 37 district court districts to recruit, screen, train and supervise volunteers. District administrators contact community groups, local agencies, the courts, and the media in order to develop volunteer participation, solicit support from key officials, provide public education about the program, and cultivate services for children. The district administrators plan an ini
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
|North Carolina courts: annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts
|North Carolina. Administrative Office of the Courts.
North Carolina. Judicial Dept.--Periodicals
North Carolina. Administrative Office of the Courts--Periodicals
Courts--North Carolina--Periodicals
Court administration--North Carolina--Periodicals
Judicial statistics--North Carolina--Periodicals
|North Carolina, United States
|Time Period
|(1990-current) Contemporary
|Issued by the North Carolina Judicial Dept;
|Raleigh, N.C. : N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts, [2007]-
|North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, Judicial Department
|State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754
|Physical Characteristics
|[a]: v. ;[c]: 28 cm.
|North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina
|Annual reports
|Digital Characteristics-A
|14889 KB; 288 p.
|Digital Collection
|North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection
|Digital Format
|Title Replaces
|North Carolina. Administrative Office of the Courts. North Carolina judicial branch,... annual report
|Pres File Name-M
|Pres Local File Path-M
|Full Text
Id I: mo/j/
C s
^xxrtij (Earnlma (Eaurte
|OCLC Number-Original