text:
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
X /3 /C/ : /97l/7? C-<Zs NORTH CAROLINA STATE LIBRARY RALEIGH Norttf Carolina Courts 13T8-T3 N. C. Doc. MAT 3 1980 Annual Report of ttje Administratis ©ffice of XX\t Courts The Cover: The Rutherford County Courthouse, in Rutherfordton, North Caro-lina, was completed in 1926. It is a stately Renaissance Revival building faced with a smooth stone veneer. Interior renovations have been minimal and many of the original features and materials survive. Worth Carolina State Library Raleigh / 5 > NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 1978 - 79 ANNUAL REPORT of the ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS JUSTICE BUILDING RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA To The Honorable, The Chief Justice of The Supreme Court of North Carolina In accord with Section 7A-343 o\~ the North Carolina General Statutes I hereby transmit the Fourteenth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1, 1978 - June 30, 1979. Some significant changes in format and content are reflected in this year's report. First, the report is on a fiscal year rather than calendar year basis. This permits a presentation of case data and other information about the Judicial Department on the same time period used to report appropriations and expenditures for the Judicial Department as well as for State government generally. Also, the fiscal year format will permit us to have available more timely reports for the consideration of the annual sessions of the General Assembly. In content, more emphasis is given to narrative, with the view o\~ better serving the varying needs of different users of the report and placing in sharper focus an overall perspective of Judicial Department activity. Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compila-tion, and presentation process required to produce this annual report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, principal responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Systems Division. Among court officials, the principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of the clerks of superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of the State. Without the daily, responsible work of clerk personnel across the State, this report would not have been possible. It is my hope that the annual report, for this and succeeding years, will make a contribution to better understanding and support for continued improvement of North Carolina's system of courts. Bert M. Montague Director February 15, 1980 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1979nort TABLE OF CONTENTS Parti The 1978-1979 Judicial Year In Review The 1978-1979 Judicial Year In Review Part II Court System Organization and Operations Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 5 The Present Court System 9 Organization and Operations in 1978-79 The Supreme Court 13 The Court of Appeals 15 The Superior Courts 19 The District Courts 25 District Attorneys 29 Clerks of Superior Court 33 Public Defenders 35 Administrative Office of the Courts 36 The Judicial Planning Committee 41 The Judicial Council 43 The Judicial Standards Commission 45 Part III Court Resources Judicial Department Finances Appropriations 47 Expenditures 50 Receipts 52 Distribution of Receipts 53 Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 56 Judicial Department Personnel 63 Part IV Courts Caseload Data Appellate Division Caseload Data 67 Superior Court Division Caseload Data 73 District Court Division Caseload Data Ill Tables, Charts and Graphs Part II Court System Organization and Operations Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the Present Court System 8 Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts 11 The Supreme Court of North Carolina 12 The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 14 Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 17 Judges of Superior Court 18 Superior Court Case Filings and Dispositions, 1975-79 20 Superior Court Cases Pending at Year End 1 975-79 20 District Court Judges 23 District Court Case Filings and Disposition 1 975-79 26 District Court Cases Pending at Year End 1975-79 26 District Attorneys 28 Clerks o\" Superior Court 31 Organization of the Administrative Office of the Courts 36 The Judicial Planning Committee 41 The Judicial Council 43 The Judicial Standards Commission 44 Part III Court Resources General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies and Judicial Department 47 General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies and Judicial Department 48 General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of all State Agencies and Department, 1974-79 49 General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations, 1974-79 51 Judicial Department Receipts, 1974-79 52 Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures collected by the Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 54 Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 57 Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 58 Categories of Assigned Counsel—Numbers of Cases and Expenditures by County 59 Judicial Department Personnel 63 Part IV Courts Caseload Data Types of Cases Before the Supreme Court 68 Types of Petitions Before the Supreme Court 69 Supreme Court Caseload Summaries, 1977-78 and 1978-79 70 Caseload Trends in the Superior Courts, 1969-1979 74 Filings and Dispositions in the Superior Court Division 75 Caseload Summaries for Civil Cases in the Superior Courts 76 Caseload Trends of Civil Cases in the Superior Courts, 1969-1979 79 Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases in the Superior Court 80 Methods of Disposition of Superior Court Civil Cases 83 Ages of Civil Cases in the Superior Courts 84 Caseload Summaries for Estate and Special Proceedings Cases in the Superior Courts 89 Caseload Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings, 1974-79 92 Caseload Summaries for Criminal Cases in the Superior Courts 93 Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases in the Superior Courts, 1969-1979 96 Felonies and Misdemeanors in the Superior Courts 97 Manner of Disposition of Criminal Cases in the Superior Courts 98 Methods of Disposition of Superior Court Criminal Cases 101 Ages of Felony and Misdemeanor Cases in the Superior Courts 102 Caseload Trends in the District Courts, 1971-1979 112 Filings and Dispositions in the District Court Division 113 Caseload Summaries for Civil Cases in the District Courts 114 Caseload Trends of Civil Cases in the District Courts, 1971-1979 117 General Civil, Domestic Relations, and Civil Magistrate Cases in the District Courts 118 Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases in the District Courts 119 Methods of Disposition of District Court Civil Cases 124 Ages of Civil Cases in the District Courts 125 Age Breakdown of Civil Cases Pending on June 30, 1979 130 Offenses and Conditions Alleged in Juvenile Petitions in the District Courts 131 Adjudicatory Hearings for Juvenile Cases in the District Courts 1 34 Caseload Summaries for Criminal Cases in the District Courts 137 Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases in the District Courts, 1971-1979 140 Motor Vehicle and Non-Motor Vehicle Cases in the District Courts 141 in Manner of Disposition of Motor Vehicle and Non-Motor Vehicle Cases in the District Courts 142 Methods of Disposition of District Court Criminal Cases 147 Ages of Motor Vehicle and Non-Motor Vehicle Cases in the District Courts 148 Rankings for the 33 Judicial Districts Based Upon Percent of Dispositions to Total Caseload 1 56 Rankings for the 100 Counties Based Upon Percent of Dispositions to Total Caseload 157 IV PARTI THE 1978-1979 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW .'_>. H^^HB THE 1978-79 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW Annual Report Format and Content This annual report covers North Carolina Judicial Department operations for the 1978-79 fiscal year, dif-fering substantially in format and content from prior annual reports, which were on a calendar year basis. Changing to the fiscal year period, July 1 through June 30, offers two distinct advantages. First, the time period on caseload data and analysis can now corres-pond with the time period for reporting on appropria-tions and expenditures. Second, the annual report for the immediate past year can be compiled, printed and distributed before or early during the legislative ses-sions of each year instead of (as in the past) usually after the legislative sessions have adjourned. For exam-ple, the latest annual report available to the 1979 Legis-lative Session was for calendar year, 1977, inasmuch as the 1978 calendar year report was not completed and available for distribution until after the Legislature had adjourned. A recommended "State Court Model Annual Re-port" was distributed in 1979 by the National Center for State Courts and the Conference of State Court Administrators as a part of a continuing effort to develop a national data base of state court statistics and to assist in the improvement of annual reports on state courts throughout the country. This recommend-ed model was used as a guide in the production of this annual report. Beginning with the 1976 Annual Report on the Judi-cial Department, North Carolina's reporting of trial court case data has been much more comprehensive than in previous years. The revised system of trial court data reporting begun in 1976 is described in the Intro-duction to the 1976 Annual Report on North Carolina Courts. This current report differs from the past three Annual Reports largely in presenting significantly more narrative comment so as to provide a better overall State perspective of Judicial Department activity. In the interest of clarity and convenience for readers, this Report is divided into four major parts, separated by a divider page of the same color as the cover. Part I consists of the "judicial year in review" statement. Part II provides information on the historical development of North Carolina courts, description of the present court system and a summary review of organization and operations during 1978-79. Part III covers court re-sources: appropriations and expenditures during 1978-79 and summary information on the categories of personnel which serve in the Judicial Department. Part IV contains detailed caseload data and comment for both the trial courts and the appellate courts. As is apparent, the basic approach in format is to present a "broad perspective" of court system organi-zation and operations, proceeding then to a more de-tailed data presentation. The objective is to meet well the varying needs of different users of the Annual Report. Whatever progress is reflected in this year's Report will hopefully be the foundation lor still further im-provements in succeeding annual reports. The Workload of the Courts During 1978-79 there were some substantial increases in the workload of North Carolina's courts, at appel-late and trial court levels. As set out in more detail in Part IV, the number of cases docketed in the Supreme Court increased 8.1%; the number of opinions filed by the Court increased 9.5%; the number of petitions docketed increased 46.3%; and the number of petitions allowed by the Supreme Court increased by 20.8%. With respect to the superior courts, a total of 68,625 cases (civil and criminal) were filed during 1978-79, a 5.9% increase over the total of 64,819 cases filed during calendar year, 1978. A total of 65,899 superior court cases were disposed of during 1978-79, an increase of 6.8% over the total ol~ 61,713 cases disposed of during calendar year, 1978. For year-end pending cases, the total at the end of 1978-79 was 35,184, representing a 2.8% reduction from the total of 36,214 cases pending at the end of calendar year, 1978. More detailed data on superior court civil and criminal caseloads is pre-sented in Part IV of this Report. For the district courts, filings of cases decreased slightly (less than one percent) during 1978-79 com-pared with calendar year, 1978, as did dispositions: a total of 1,402,518 for 1978-79 compared with 1,407,360 for calendar year, 1978. The number of district court cases, civil and criminal, which were pending as of June 30, 1979 was about one percent greater (244,922) com-pared with the number (242,920) pending at the end of calendar year, 1978. As the more detailed data in Parts II and IV of this Report show, the trend in district court case activity over the past several years reflects a significant increase. The slight decrease in current year total case activity is not regarded as necessarily indica-tive of a trend which will hold. It is important to note that civil case filings in the district courts during 1978-79 increased almost six per-cent, and the number of civil cases pending at year-end rose more than 1 1% over the prior year. The principal decrease in district court filings during 1978-79 was in the traffic offense category. This decrease (2.4%) in traffic cases is undoubtedly related to recently reported trends in the operation of private automobiles as re-flected, for example, in decreasing state gasoline lax revenues. The higher costs of gasoline appear to be prompting automobile owners to drive less than they would otherwise, and at lower speeds. Whether the de-creases in traffic case activity in the district courts dur- THE 1978-79 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW ing 1978-79 reflect a trend for this category of cases which will hold during the next few years remains to be seen. Obviously, if private automobile use decreases, or does not continue to increase as in the past, the volume of traffic offenses which will come before the district courts in the State will be affected. Legislative Highlights Constitutional Amendments By the required three-fifths vote in each house, the Legislature approved a proposed amendment to the State Constitution, to be voted on statewide at the gen-eral election in the Fall of 1980, which provides that only a person who is authorized to practice law in the State will be eligible for appointment or election to a judgeship. Under the present State Constitution a non-lawyer can serve as a judge in any of the courts, appel-late as well as the trial courts. Non-lawyers have not in the past been appointed or elected to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the superior court. Eight non-lawyers have been elected district court judges; but any non-lawyer sitting judge would be ex-empted from application of the proposed constitutional amendment under a "grandfather clause." A proposed constitutional amendment providing for "nonpartisan merit selection" of judges failed to gain the necessary three-fifths legislative approval for sub-mission to a statewide vote. Censure or Removal of a Supreme Court Justice The statutes pertaining to the Judicial Standards Commission were amended to provide that if the re-spondent is a member of the State Supreme Court, the recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission will go to the Court of Appeals for action instead of to the Supreme Court. In such case, the Chief Judge and the six senior judges on the Court of Appeals, exclud-ing any judge serving on the Judicial Standards Com-mission, would act on the recommendation of the Judi-cial Standards Commission. Court Studies The General Assembly reestablished the North Caro-lina Courts Commission which will have a continuing responsibility to review court organization and opera-tion issues and submit recommendations for improve-ment. Five members of this Commission are appointed by the Governor, five by the President of the Senate, and five by the Speaker of the House. The Legislature also gave this Commission four specific study assign-ments: consideration of administrative adjudication of traffic cases in lieu of initial filing of such cases in the district courts; a study of the offices of the Clerk of Superior Court and the position of trial court adminis-trator; and a study of the feasibility of making financial settlement to persons convicted and imprisoned whose terms of imprisonment are later shown to have been legally erroneous. The Legislative Research Commission (an agency of the General Assembly) was directed to study the laws of evidence with the view of proposing an evidence code for the State; and the Criminal Code Commission, appointed by the Attorney General and responsible for studies in the criminal law and procedure area, was di-rected to study the defense of insanity in criminal cases. Reports on these matters are to be presented to the 1981 General Assembly. Additional District Court Judges Nine additional district court judges were authorized by the General Assembly, one each in the following judicial districts: 1st, 3rd, 4th. 5th, 13th, 14th. 26th, 27B, and 29th. Presumptive Sentencing Law A presumptive sentencing law (G.S. 15A- 1340.1 et seq.) was enacted by the 1979 General Assembly, to be applicable to felonies committed on or after July 1, 1980. The act divides felonies into 10 classes and sets a presumptive sentence for each class other than those for which the death penalty or life imprisonment is mandated by statute. The sentencing judge must im-pose the presumptive sentence unless he gives written reasons for the court record for not doing so. However, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute for a particular offense, the judge retains full discretion to suspend a prison term, impose probation supervision, sentence a defendant as a youthful offender or impose consecutive terms for multiple offenses without giving reasons. In imposing a prison term for a felony conviction, the sentencing judge may consider any relevant miti-gating or aggravating circumstance; and he must con-sider the following factors: (1) aggravating - in com-mitting the offense the defendant inflicted bodily injury or property damage substantially in excess of the mini-mum required to prove the offense, or the defendant induced others to participate in the offense or provided leadership of others in committing the offense; (2) miti-gating — defendant had no prior criminal record or a record only of minor misdemeanors, defendant inflict-ed minimum bodily injury or property damage, was a passive participant or had a minor role, suffered from a mental or physical condition not sufficient to constitute a defense but which significantly reduced his culpabil-ity, the defendant was of such age or limited mental capacity as to be substantially lacking in sound judg-ment, or defendant had made partial or full restitution to the victim of the crime. Further, the sentencing THE 1978-79 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW judge is required to take into account a negotiated plea and any circumstance arising from the evidence which is found by the judge to have mitigating value. Second Grand Jury Authorized Section 1 5A-622 of the North Carolina General Stat-utes was amended to authorize the senior resident su-perior court judge in a district to expedite criminal prosecutions by impaneling a second grand jury in any county of the district, to sit concurrently with the regu-lar grand jury. First Appearance on Felony Charge Section 15A-601 of the General Statutes was amend-ed to provide, effective October 1, 1979, that the clerk of superior court may conduct the first appearance pro-ceeding for one charged with a felony if a district court judge is not available within the 96-hour period re-quired by statute. Revised Juvenile Code Relevant to the jurisdiction and authority of district court judges in juvenile matters, and to the responsibili-ties of juvenile court counselors, the General Assembly enacted a new Juvenile Code, based upon a report of the Juvenile Code Revision Committee which was es-tablished by the 1977 General Assembly. The new code (G.S. 7A-516 et seq.) becomes effective on January 1, 1980. Jurisdiction of Magistrates The jurisdiction of magistrates in small claims cases was increased from $500 to $800, and the jurisdictional amount involved in worthless check charges heard by magistrates was increased from $300 to $400. These changes were made effective October I, 1979. Appropriations State funds were appropriated for the following addi-tional positions in the Judicial Department: nine dis-trict court judges; 18 assistant district attorneys; 12 magistrates; 86 deputy clerks; two court reporters; one investigatorial assistant for a district attorney office: four attorneys and two secretaries for the prehearing unit of the Court of Appeals; a trial court administra-tor and secretary for each of ten judicial districts; 10 assistant public defenders, five stenographers and one investigator for Public Defender offices: an executive director, investigator, and secretary for the Judicial Standards Commission (to replace LEAA-funded posi-tions). In addition, funds were appropriated to raise juror's pay after five days of jury duty from $8 to $30 per day, and to increase grand jurors' pay from $8 to $12 per day. Judicial Department personnel received an ap-proximate 7% cost-of-living salary increase, compar-able to that provided for other State personnel. PART II COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS • Historical Development of Court System • Present Court System • Organization and Operations in 1978-79 BS^HHHIUIHII HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM From its early colonial period North Carolina's judi-cial system has been the focus of periodic attention and adjustment. Through the years, there has been a repeat-ed sequence of critical examination, proposals for re-form, and finally the enactment of some reform measures. Colonial Period Around 1700 the royal governor established a Gener-al (or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute developed over the appointment of associate justices. The Assembly conceded to the King the right to name the chief justice but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the power to appoint the associate justices. Other con-troversies developed concerning the creation and juris-diction of the courts and the tenure of judges. As for the latter, the Assembly's position was that judge ap-pointments should be for good behavior as against the royal governor's decision for life appointment. State historians have noted that "the Assembly won its fight to establish courts and the judicial structure in the province was grounded on laws enacted by the legisla-ture," which was more familiar with local conditions and needs (Lefler and Newsome, 142). Nevertheless, North Carolina alternated between periods under legis-latively enacted reforms (like good behavior tenure and the Court Bill of 1746, which contained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary court system) and periods of stale-mate and anarchy after such enactments were nullified by royal authority. A more elaborate system was framed by legislation in 1767 to last five years. It was not renewed because of persisting disagreement be-tween local and royal partisans. As a result, North Carolina was without higher courts until after Indepen-dence (Battle, 847). At the lower court level during the colonial period, judicial and county government administrative func-tions were combined in the authority of the justices of the peace, who were appointed by the royal governor. After the Revolution When North Carolina became a state in 1776, the colonial structure of the court system was retained largely intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Ses-sions — the county court which continued in use from about 1670 to 1868 — were still held by the assembled justices of the peace in each county. The justices were appointed by the governor on the recommendation of the General Assembly, and they were paid out of fees charged litigants. On the lowest level of the judicial sys-tem, magistrate courts of limited jurisdiction were held by justices of the peace, singly or in pairs, while the county court was out of term. The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the Gener-al Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of Law and Equity. A court law enacted a year later au-thorized three superior court judges and created judi-cial districts. Sessions were supposed to be held in the court towns of each district twice a year, under a sys-tem much like the one that had expired in 1772. Just as there had been little distinction in terminology between General Court and Supreme Court prior to the Revolu-tion, the terms Supreme Court and Superior Court were also interchangeable during the period immediate-ly following the Revolution. One of the most vexing governmental problems con-fronting the new State of North Carolina was its judi-ciary. "From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary caused complaint and demands for reform." (Lefler and Newsome, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, con-flicting judge opinions, and insufficient number of judges, and lack of means for appeal were all cited as problems, although the greatest weakness was consid-ered to be the lack of a real Supreme Court. In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court or Con-ference to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the districts. This court was continued and made perma-nent by subsequent laws. The justices were required to put their opinions in writing to be delivered orally in court. The Court of Conference was changed in name to the Supreme Court in 1805 and authorized to hear appeals in 1810. Because of the influence of the English legal system, however, there was still no conception of an alternative to judges sitting together to hear appeals from cases which they had themselves heard in the dis-tricts in panels of as few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 1818, though, an independent three-judge Supreme Court was created for review of cases decided at the Superior Court level. Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in each county were made mandatory in 1806, and the State was divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the six judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constitut-ing a quorum as before. The County court of justices of the peace continued during this period as the lowest court and as the agency of local government. After the Civil War Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it more democratic were made in 1868. A primary holdover from the English legal arrangement - - the distinction between law and equity proceedings — was abolished. The County Court's control of local govern-ment was abolished. Capital offenses were limited to murder, arson, burglary and rape, and the Constitution stated that the aim of punishment was "not only to sat-isfy justice, but also to reform the offender, and thus HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COl'RT SYSTEM prevent crime." The membership of the Supreme Court was raised to five, and the selection of the justices (in-cluding the designation of the chief justice) and super-ior court judges (raised in number to 12) was taken from the legislature and given to the voters, although vacancies were to be filled by the governor until the next election. The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions the County Court of which three justices of the peace constituted a quorum — was eliminated. Its judi-cial responsibilities were divided between the Superior Courts and the individual justices of the peace, who were retained as separate judicial officers with limited jurisdiction. Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 Constitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme Court justices to three and the Superior Court judges to nine. The General Assembly was given the power to appoint justices of the peace, instead of the governor. Most of the modernizing changes in the post-Civil War Constitution, however, were left, and the judicial struc-ture it had established continued without systematic modification through more than half of the 20th cen-tury. (A further constitutional amendment approved by the voters in November, 1888, returned the Supreme Court membership to five, and the number of superior court judges to twelve.) Before Reorganization A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time systematic court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. This accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the court system was most evident at the lower, local court level, where hundreds of courts specially created by statute operated with widely dissimilar structure and jurisdiction. By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent major reforms was begun, the court system in North Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme Court, with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior court, with general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statu-tory courts of limited jurisdiction, and (d) justices of the peace and mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction. At the superior court level, the State had been divid-ed into 30 judicial districts and 24 solicitorial districts. The 40 superior court judges (who rotated among the counties) and the district solicitors were paid by the State. The clerk of superior court, who was judge of probate and often also a juvenile judge, was a county official. There were specialized branches of superior court in some counties for matters like domestic rela-tions and juvenile offenses. The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher of these local court levels were more than 180 recorder-type courts. Among these were the county recorder's courts, municipal recorder's courts and township re-corder's courts; the general county courts, county crim-inal courts and special county courts; the domestic relations courts and the juvenile courts. Some of these had been established individually by special legislative acts more than a half-century earlier. Others had been created by general law across the State since 1919. About half were county courts and half were city or township courts. Jurisdiction included misdemeanors (mostly traffic offenses), preliminary hearings and sometimes civil matters. The judges, who were usually-part- time, were variously elected or appointed locally. At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had simi-lar criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties up to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the peace also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These court officials were compensated by the fees they exact-ed, and they provided their own facilities. Court Reorganization The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revi-sion of the court system received the attention and sup-port of Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who encouraged the leadership of the North Carolina Bar Association to pursue the matter. A Court Study Com-mittee was established as an agency of the North Caro-lina Bar Association, and that Committee issued its report, calling for reorganization, at the end of 1958. A legislative Constitutional Commission, which worked with the Court Study Committee, finished its report early the next year. Both groups called for the structur-ing of an all-inclusive court system which would be directly state-operated, uniform in its organization throughout the State and centralized in its administra-tion. The plan was for a simplified, streamlined and unified structure. A particularly important part of the proposal was the elimination of the local statutory courts and their replacement by a single District Court; the office of justice of the peace was to be abolished, and the newly fashioned position of magistrate would function within the District Court as a subordinate judicial office. Constitutional amendments were introduced in the legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were reintroduced and approved at the 1961 session. The Constitutional amendments were approved by popular vote in 1962, and three years later the General Assem-bly enacted statutes to put the system into effect by stages. By the end of 1970 all of the counties and their courts had been incorporated into the new system, whose unitary nature was symbolized by the name. General Court of Justice. The designation of the entire 20th Century judicial system as a single, statewide "court," with components for various types and levels HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OE THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM of caseload, was adapted from North Carolina's earlier General Court, whose full venue extended to all of the 17th Century counties. After Reorganization Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has contin-ued. In 1965, the Constitution was amended to provide for the creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It was amended again in 1972 to allow for the Supreme Court to censure or remove judges upon the recom-mendation of a Judicial Standards Commission. As for the selection of judges, persistent efforts have been made in the 1970's to obtain legislative approval of amendments to the State Constitution, to appoint judges according to "merit" instead of electing them by popular, partisan vote. The proposed amendments have received the backing of a majority of the members of each house, but not the three-fifths required to sub-mit constitutional amendments to a vote of the people. It seems likely that this significant issue will be before the General Assembly again for consideration. Major Sources Battle, Kemp. P. in Address on the History oj the Supreme Court (Delivered in 1888). I North Carolina Reports 835-876. Hinsdale, C.E. County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition. Lefler. Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome. North Carolina: The History oj a Southern State. 1963 Edition. Sanders, John L. Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute ol Government. Stevenson. George and Ruby D. Arnold. North Carolina Courts oj Law and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular l l)73 ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONS AND ROUTES OF APPEAL IN THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM i Recommendations from Judicial }• iStandards Commission' Original Jurisdiction All felony cases; civil cases in excess of $5,000 , . , Decisions of i most administrative J i agencies i i i COURT OF APPEALS 12 Judges Original Jurisdiction Probate and estates, special proceedings (condemnations, adoptions, partitions, foreclosures, etc.) Clerks of Superior Court (100) DISTRICT COURTS 127 Judges Magistrates (589} S ®.N r , Decisions ol Utilities Commission. Industrial Commission, Insurance Commissioner, and N.C. Stale Bar l_ I Original Jurisdiction Misdemeanor cases not assigned to magistrates; probable cause hearings; civil cases $5,000 or less; juvenile proceedings; domestic relations; involuntary commitments Original Jurisdiction Accept certain misdemeanor guilty pleas; worthless check misdemeanors $300 or less; small claims $500 or less (1) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving con-stitutional questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may re-view Court of Appeals decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. (2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. (3) Appeals in criminal cases where the defendant has been sentenced to death or life imprisonment go directly to the Supreme Court as a matter of right; in all other criminal cases and in civil cases appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court, in its dis-cretion, may hear appeals directly from the trial court in cases where delay would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full. THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab-lishes the General Court of Justice which "shall consti-tute a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdic-tion, operation, and administration, and shall consist of an Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a District Court Division." The Appellate Division is comprised of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The Superior Court Division is comprised of the su-perior courts which hold sessions in the county seats of the 100 counties of the State. The counties are grouped into judicial districts (33 at the present time), and one or more superior court judges are elected for each of the judicial districts. A clerk of the superior court for each county is elected by the voters of the county. The District Court Division is comprised of the dis-trict courts. The General Assembly is authorized to divide the State into a convenient number of local court districts and prescribe where the district courts shall sit, but district court must sit in at least one place in each county. The General Assembly has provided that districts for purposes of the district court are co-terminous with superior court judicial districts. The Constitution also provides for one or more magistrates to be appointed in each county "who shall be officers of the district court." The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains the term, "judicial department," stating that "The General Assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the government, nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other than as permitted by this Article." The terms, "General Court of Justice" and "Judicial De-partment" are almost, but not quite, synonymous. It may be said that the Judicial Department encompasses all of the levels of court designated as the General Court of Justice plus all administrative and ancillary services within the Judicial Department. The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal be-tween the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of courts are illustrated in the chart on the op-posite page. Criminal Cases Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original ju-risdiction of the district courts. Some misdemeanor of-fenses are tried by magistrates, who are also empow-ered to accept pleas of guilty to certain offenses and impose fines in accordance with a schedule set by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges. Most trials of misdemeanors are by district court judges, who also hold preliminary, "probable cause" hearings in felony cases. Trial of felony cases is within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the dis-trict court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by jury available at the district court level; appeal from the district courts' judgments in criminal cases is to the superior courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in life-imprisonment or death sentence cases (which are appealed to the Supreme Court), appeal from the su-perior courts is to the Court of Appeals. Civil Cases The 100 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges of probate and have original jurisdiction in probate and estates matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction over such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, condemnations under the authority of eminent domain, and foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the superior court. The district courts have original jurisdiction in juve-nile proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for involuntary commitment to a mental hospital, and gen-eral civil cases where the amount in litigation is $5,000 or less. If the amount in litigation is $500* or less and the plantiff in the case so requests, the chief district court judge may assign the case for initial hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates' decisions may be appealed to the district court. Trial by jury for civil cases is avail-able in the district courts; appeal from the judgment of a district court in a civil case is to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of general civil cases where the amount of litigation is more than $5,000. Appeals from decisions of most administrative agencies is first within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in civil cases is to the Court of Appeals. Administration The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of the other courts of the General Court of Justice" (G.S. 7A-32(b)). In addition to this grant of general supervisory power, the North Carolina General Statutes provide certain Judicial Department officials with specific powers and responsibilities for the operation of the court system. The Supreme Court has the responsibility for prescribing rules of practice and procedures for the appellate courts and for prescribing rules for the trial courts to supplement those prescribed by statute. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court designates one of the judges of the Court of Appeals to be its Chief Judge, who in turn is responsible for scheduling the ses-sions of the Court of Appeals. * Increased to $800 effective October 1 , 1979 (G.S. 7A-2 10). THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM The chart on the following page illustrates specific responsibilities for administration of the trial courts vested in Judicial Department officials by statute. The Chief Justice appoints both the Director and Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts; the Assistant Director also serves as the Chief Justice's administrative assistant. The schedule of sessions of su-perior court in the 100 counties is set by the Supreme Court; assignment of the State's rotating superior court judges is the responsibility of the Chief Justice. Finally, the Chief Justice designates a chief district court judge for each of the State's 33 judicial districts from among the elected district court judges of the respective dis-tricts. These judges have special responsibilities for the scheduling of the district courts and magistrates' courts within their respective districts, as well as general local-level administrative responsibilities. The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsi-ble for direction of the non-judicial, administrative and business affairs of the Judicial Department. Included among its functions are fiscal management, personnel direction, information and statistical services, supervi-sion of record keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, liaison with the legislative and executive departments of government, court facility evaluation, purchase and contract, education and training, coordination of the program for provision of legal counsel to indigent per-sons, juvenile probation and after-care, trial court ad-ministrator services, planning, and general administra-tive services. The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk for both the superior and district courts. In most counties the clerk is also chairman of the county's cal-endar committee, which sets the civil case calendar. (In a few districts these committees have been abolished with the advent of the "trial court administrator" pro-gram now being tested.) The criminal case calendars in both superior and district courts are set by the district attorney of the respective district. PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES FOR NORTH CAROLINA TRIAL COURTS CHIEF JUSTICE and SUPREME COURT (33) Senior Resident Judges; (100) Clerks of Superior Court SUPERIOR COURTS ? 2 i Administrative Office of the Courts (33) Chief District Court Judges DISTRICT COURTS 1 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other trial courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court judges, who rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice. : Both the Director and Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Chief Justice. 3 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other trial courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge in each of the 33 judicial districts from the judges elected in the respective districts. 4 The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the Judicial Department. 5 The district attorney sets the criminal-case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their re-spective courts. h In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the supervision of the chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nomi-nees submitted by the clerk of superior court. II THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA1 ChiefJustice SUSIE SHARP : Associate Justices JOSEPH BRANCH' J. FRANK HUSKINS J. WILLIAM COPELAND JAMESG. EXUNLJR. DAVID M. BRITT WALTER E. BROCK Retired Chief Justice WILLIAM H. BOBBITT Retired Justices J. WILLPLESS,JR. CARLISLE W.HIGGINS I. BEVERLY LAKE DAN K.MOORE Clerk John R. Morgan Librarian Frances H. Hall 'As of 30 June 1979. 2 Retired 3! July 1979. 'Appointed Chief Justice 1 August 1979. Court of Appeals Judge J. Phil Carlton was appointed Associate Justice 2 August 1979. 12 THE SUPREME COURT At the apex of the General Court of Justice is the seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to consider and decide questions of law presented in civil and criminal cases appealed from the lower courts. The Chief Justice and six associate justices are elected to eight-year terms by popular vote. There are two terms of the Supreme Court each year: a Spring Term com-mencing on the first Tuesday in February and a Fall Term commencing on the first Tuesday in September. The Court sits only en banc. Jurisdiction The only original jurisdiction exercised by the Su-preme Court is over the censure and removal of judges upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judi-cial Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jur-isdiction includes: cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals (Utilities Commission general rate-setting cases, cases involving constitutional questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals); cases on appeal by right from the superior courts (criminal cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to death or to life imprisonment); and cases in which review has been granted in the Supreme Court's discretion (cases of significant public interest and cases involving legal principles of major signifi-cance to North Carolina jurisprudence). Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly from the trial courts may be granted when delay would likely cause substantial harm or when the workload of the Appel-late Division is such that the expeditious administra-tion of justice requires it; most appeals are heard only after review by the Court of Appeals. Discretionary review may also be granted when the decision of the Court of Appeals in a case appears likely to be in con-flict with a decision of the Supreme Court. Administration The Supreme Court has general power to supervise and control the proceedings of the other courts of the General Court of Justice. The court has specific power to prescribe the rules of practice for the Appellate Divi-sion and supplementary rules of practice and procedure for the trial court divisions consistent with the rules prescribed by the General Assembly. The schedule of superior court sessions in the 100 counties is approved, yearly, by the Supreme Court. The members of the North Carolina Judicial Planning Committee are ap-pointed by, and serve at the pleasure o\\ the Supreme Court, as are the Clerk of the Supreme Court, the Li-brarian of the Supreme Court, and the Appellate Divi-sion Reporter. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints both the Director and Assistant Director of the Admin-istrative Office of the Courts, who serve at his pleasure. He also designates a Chief Judge from among the judges of the Court o\~ Appeals and a Chief District Court Judge from among the judges in each o( the State's 33 judicial districts. He assigns superior court judges, who regularly rotate from district to district, to the scheduled sessions of superior court in the 100 counties, and is also empowered to transfer district court judges to other districts for temporary or special-ized duty. The Chief Justice (or another member of the Supreme Court designated by him) is the chairman of the Judicial Council, and two superior court judges, one district court judge and two district attorneys are appointed to two-year terms on the Council by the Chief Justice. He also appoints three o\' the seven members of the Judicial Standards Commission, a judge of the Court of Appeals who serves as the Com-mission's chairman, one superior court judge and one district court judge. Operations of the Court, 1978-79 Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 1978-79 fiscal year ending June 30, 1979 amounted to $1,173,674, an 'increase of 10.9% over the 1977-78 fiscal year which had expenditures of $1,057,897. Expendi-tures for the Supreme Court during 1978-79 constituted 1.9% of all General Fund expenditures for the opera-tion of the entire Judicial Department during that fiscal year. During the J 978 Fall Term and the 1979 Spring Term a total of 69 cases were brought forward from previous terms and 188 new cases were docketed, for a total of 257 cases before the Court during this period. During these two terms 23 cases were withdrawn or dismissed, opinions were filed in 162 cases, and at the end of the 1979 Spring Term 19 cases were carried for-ward to the following term. During these two terms a total of 499 petitions were filed and 65 petitions were allowed. (See Part IV of this Annual Report for more detail on caseload activity before the Supreme Court.) 13 THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA' ChiefJudge NAOMI E. MORRIS Judges FRANK M. PARKER R. A.HEDRICK EARL W.VAUGHN ROBERT M.MARTIN EDWARD B.CLARK GERALD ARNOLD BURLEY B. MITCHELL. JR.- JOHN WEBB RICHARD C. ERWIN HARRY C. MARTIN J. PHIL CARLTON' Retired Chief Judge RAYMOND B. MALLARD4 Retired Judge HUGH B. CAMPBELL Clerk Francis E. Dail 'AA3sUoIf 3J0U JJUuMnte 1\977I97.. 1 Resigned 20 August 1979. Judge Cecil J. Hill was appointed to fill Judge Mitchell's unexpired term and took office on 14 September 1979. 1 Resigned 2 August 1979 upon appointment to the Supreme Court. Judge Hugh A. Wells was appointed to fill Judge Carlton's unexpired term and took office on 20 August 1979 •Deceased 20 July 1979. 14 THE COURT OF APPEALS The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the appeals originating from the trial courts. The Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other loca-tions in the State as authorized by the Supreme Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regular or frequent. During 1978-1979, panels of the Court of Ap-peals held three two-day sessions in Winston-Salem. Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected by popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for the Court is designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the Chief Justice. Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the Chief Judge responsible for assigning members of the Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal num-ber of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge presides over the panel of which he or she is a member and designates a presiding judge for the other panels. The Chief Judge (or another member of the Court of Appeals designated by the Chief Judge) is an ex officio member of the Judicial Council; and one member of the Court of Appeals, designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serves as chairman of the Judi-cial Standards Commission. Jurisdiction The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals consists of cases appealed from the trial courts. This Court also hears appeals directly from any final order or decision of the North Carolina Utilities Commis-sion, and from certain final orders or decisions of the North Carolina State Bar and the Commissioner of In-surance. Effective September 1, 1979, appeals from cer-tain final orders or decisions of the Property Tax Com-mission go directly to the Court of Appeals. (Appeals from the decisions of other administrative agencies lie, first, within the jurisdiction of the superior courts.) Effective April 30, 1979, the General Assembly con-ferred upon the Chief Judge and the six judges next senior in service on the Court of Appeals jurisdiction to censure or remove from office a Supreme Court justice. Such censure or removal case comes before the seven-member panel of judges upon the non-binding recom-mendation of the Judicial Standards Commission. Operations of the Court, 1978-79 Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during the 1978-79 fiscal year ending June 30, 1979 totalled $1,485,877, an increase of 20.4% over 1977-78 expendi-tures of $1,233,765. Much of this increase is attribut-able to the increase (from nine to twelve) in the number of Court of Appeals judges. Expenditures for the Court of Appeals during 1978-79 amounted to 2.4% of all General Fund expenditures for the operation of the en-tire Judicial Department during that fiscal year. During the fiscal year July 1, 1978 through June 30, 1979 the Court of Appeals reported dispositions in a total of 1,114 cases. A total of 671 published opinions were filed, of which 230 were in criminal cases and 441 were in civil cases, including appeals from the Insur-ance Commissioner, the Industrial Commission, and the Utilities Commission. Dispositions in a total of 443 cases were reported without published opinions, of which 280 were criminal cases and 163 were civil cases. 15 iirtaft North Carolina State Library Raleigh ?•'- > 5 w H H PC UHZ Ed w cc b > 5 > co - -a s_ c E c c at =1 o C -J o — v. Cv. u t-o > u i- >> 1— u ^a o ex j u_ -5 3 1— 73 o y -J 3 u IS T3 3 'J ' 3 00 'l— w c <U u-a: y. 3 w 3 O y, -5 o O O '— *-^ y 'J 'J o— 1 C i— t/3 o I— -J _E T3 T3 y -5 b C -a ~ E o —>- aJ ' ~~ '-a 6 3 -a y >> E 3 A u i— o -j _j -z > 'J 'j u c — i— o j= _c ;— cT: ^ "J j= --, _E 3 ~ o -J 17 JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT* (As of June 30, 1979) District 1 2 3 4 1 1 12 13 14 DIVISION I J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City Elbert S. Peel, Jr., Williamston Robert D. Rouse, Jr., Farmville David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville James R. Strickland, Jacksonville Bradford Tillery, Wilmington Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids George M. Fountain, Tarboro Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro R. Michael Bruce, Mount Olive James D. Llewellyn, Kinston DIVISION II Hamilton H. Hobgood, Louisburg James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh A. Pilston Godwin, Jr., Raleigh Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh Harry E. Canaday, Benson E. Maurice Braswell, Fayetteville Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville D. G. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown Thomas H. Lee, Durham Anthony M. Brannon, Bahama John C. Martin, Durham 15A D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington 1 5B F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill 16 Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton DIVISION III District 17 James M. Long, Yanceyville 18 Charles T. Kivett, Greensboro W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro Edward K. Washington, Greensboro 19A Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer James C. Davis, Concord 19B HalH. Walker, Asheboro 20 John D. McConnell, Southern Pines F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro 21 Harvey A. Lupton, Winston-Salem William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem 22 Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville Peter W. Hairston, Advance 23 Julius A. Rosseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro DIVISION IV 24 Ronald W. Howell, Marshall 25 Sam J. Ervin, III, Morganton Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 26 Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte William T. Grist, Charlotte Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte 27A Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia 27B John R. Friday, Lincolnton 28 Robert D. Lewis, Asheville C. Walter Allen, Asheville 29 J. W. Jackson, Hendersonville 30 Lacy H. Thornburg, Webster * In districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed first SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT Ronald Barbee, Greensboro Robert R. Browning, Greenville Robert L. Gavin, Pinehurst William Thomas Graham, Winston-Salem Harry L. Riddle, Jr., Morganton David I. Smith, Burlington Donald L. Smith, Raleigh Ralph A. Walker, Greensboro THE SUPERIOR COURTS North Carolina's superior courts are principally orig-inal- jurisdiction trial courts which also perform some appellate functions. In 1978-79 there were 58 "resi-dent" superior court judges elected to office in the 33 judicial districts, for eight-year terms by Statewide bal-lot, and eight "special" superior court judges, appoint-ed to office by the Governor for four-year terms. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under the Consti-tution of North Carolina, at least two sessions (a week each) of superior court are held annually in each of the 100 counties. The vast majority of counties have more than the Constitutional minimum of two weeks o\ su-perior court annually. Many larger counties have superior court in session about every week in the year. Jurisdiction The superior court has original jurisdiction in all fel-ony cases and in those misdemeanor cases which origi-nate by grand jury indictment. (Most misdemeanors are tried first in the district court, from which they may be appealed to the superior court for trial de novo by a jury. No trial by jury is available for criminal cases in district court.) The superior court is the proper court for trial of civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, and this court has jurisdiction over ap-peals from all administrative agencies except the Utili-ties Commission, Industrial Commission, certain rul-ings of the Commissioner of Insurance, and the Board of Bar Examiners of the N.C. State Bar. Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. Regardless of the amount in controversy, the original civil jurisdiction of the superior court does not include domestic relations cases, which are heard in the district courts, or probate and estates matters and certain spe-cial proceedings heard first by the clerk o\' superior court as ex officio judge of probate. Rulings of the clerk are within the appeallate jurisidiction of the su-perior court. Administration The 100 counties of North Carolina are grouped into 33 judicial districts. Each district has at least one resi-dent superior court judge who has certain administra-tive responsibilities for his home district, such as pro-viding for civil case-calendaring procedures (criminal case calendars are the responsibility of the district at-torneys). In districts with more than one resident super-ior court jduge, the judge senior in service on the super-ior court bench exercises these supervisory powers. The 33 judicial districts are divided into four divi-sions for the rotation of superior court judges. Within his division, a resident superior court judge is required to rotate through the judicial districts, holding court for at least six months in each, then moving on to an-other district. A special superior court judge may be assigned to hold court in any of the 100 counties. As-signments of all superior court judges are made by the Resources A total of $12,377,669 was expended for operation of the superior courts during the 1978-79 fiscal year, an increase of 18.5% over 1977-78 expenditures o\' $10,443,645. This total includes expenditures lor the State's district attorneys' offices as well as the salaries and operating expenses of the 66 superior court judges, court reporters in the superior courts, and staff sup-port. The 1978-79 total amounted to 19.9% of the Gen-eral Fund expenditures for operating expenses o\' the entire Judicial Department. 1978-79 Caseload Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 68,625 cases were filed in the superior courts during the period July 1, 1978 through June 30, 1979. As the white bars in the chart below illustrate, superior court case findings have been increasing: the 1978-79 total is 5.9% higher than the total of 64,819 cases filed during the 1978 calendar year and 11.3% higher than the 1977 to-tal of 61,665 cases filed. A total of 65,91 1 superior court cases were disposed of during 1978-79. Like filings, dispositions (shown m the black bars in the first chart on the following page) have been increasing: the total for the 1978-79 fiscal year is 6.8% higher than the figure of 61,713 cases dis-posed of during calendar year 1978 and 10.9% higher than the 59,434 cases disposed of during calendar year 1977.* The numbers of superior court cases, both civil and criminal, which have remained pending at the end o\' the last five annual reporting periods are illustrated in the second chart on the following page. A total of 35,172 cases were pending on June 30, 1979, a 2.9% re-duction from the total pending on December 31, 1978 - 36,214 cases. As the chart illustrates, however, the general trend over the past four and one-half \ears has been one of increases in the numbers of superior court cases pending at year end. More detailed information on superior court civil and criminal caseloads is contained in Part IV o\~ this Report. *The data in the chart are for calendar years 1975 through 1978 and for fiscal year 1978-79. To facilitate comparisons and depict recent trends in case filings and dispositions, cases filed or disposed of between July 1 and December 31, 1978, are included m both the figures for calendar year 1978 and the figures for fiscal year 1978-79. I') SUPERIOR COURT CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS, 1975 — 1978-79 SO. 000 70,000 in — I < U 60,000 50,000 40,000 PQ 2 30,000 20,000 10,000 68,625 64,424 61,773 6Hll 61,665 58,789 -— H 59 - 4 -? SUPERIOR COURT CASES PENDING AT YEAR END, 1975 — 1978-79 40,000 36,214 35,000 a zq 30,000 c« 25,000 < 20,000 on gj 1 5,000 DQ 1 0,000 5,000 20 THE SUPERIOR COURTS Educational Activity Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Depart-ment sponsored the following educational activities for superior court judges in 1978-79: • the Fall Continuing Education Conference, Octo-ber 19-21 in Asheville, attended by 45 judges; an orientation session for new judges, December 1-2 at the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill, attended by five new judges; the Spring Seminar, March 29-31 in Charlotte, at-tended by 56 judges; and the annual meeting of the Conference of Superior Court Judges, June 17-20 in Asheville, attended by 54 judges. The Conference of Superior Court Judges (Officers as of June 30, 1979) James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh, President John D. McConnell, Southern Pines, President-Elect A. Pilston Godwin, Jr., Raleigh, Vice President F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill, Secretary- Treasurer Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville, and Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory, Additional Executive Committee Members 21 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* (As of June 30, 1979) District 1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City 2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington Charles H. Manning, Williamston 3 Charles H. Whedbee, Greenville E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City Norris C. Reed, Jr., New Bern Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton 4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill E. Alex Erwin, III, Jacksonville Walter P. Henderson, Trenton Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville 5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington Charles H. Rice, III, Wilmington John M. Walker, Wilmington 6 Joseph D. Blythe, Harrellsville Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids Robert E. Williford, Lewiston 7 George Britt, Tarboro Allen W. Harrell, Wilson Tom H. Matthews, Rocky Mount Ben H. Neville, Whitakers 8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont Herbert W. Hardy, Maury Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro 9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford Ben U. Allen, Jr., Henderson J. Larry Senter, Franklinton Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford 10 George F. Bason, Raleigh Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh George R. Greene, Raleigh John Hill Parker, Raleigh Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh 1 1 Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield William Christian, Sanford K. Edward Greene, Dunn W. Pope Lyon, Smithfield District 12 Derb S. Carter, Fayetteville Sol G. Cherry, Fayetteville Joseph E. Dupree, Raeford Charles Lee Guy, Fayetteville Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville 13 Frank T. Grady, Elizabethtown J.Wilton Hunt, Sr., Whiteville William E. Wood, Whiteville 14 J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham David Q. LaBarre, Durham William G. Pearson, II, Durham 15A J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington Thomas D. Cooper, Jr., Burlington W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham 15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill Donald L. Paschal, Siler City 16 Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg John S. Gardner, Lumberton Charles G. McLean, Lumberton 17 Leonard H. van Noppen, Danbury Foy Clark, Mt. Airy Jerry Cash Martin, Mt. Airy Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville 18 Robert L. Cecil, High Point Elreta M. Alexander, Greensboro Frank A. Campbell, Greensboro B. Gordon Gentry, Greensboro John B. Hatfield, Jr., Greensboro James Samuel Pfaff, Greensboro Joseph A. Williams, Greensboro John F. Yeattes, Jr., Greensboro 19A Robert L. Warren, Concord L. Frank Faggart, Kannapolis Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury 19B L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro William H. Heafner, Asheboro 20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle Kenneth W. Honeycutt, Monroe Walter M. Lampley, Rockingham *The Chief District Court Judge tor each district is listed first. 23 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* (As of June 30, 1979) District 21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem Gary B. Tash, Winston-Salem 22 Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville Preston Cornelius, Mooresville Robert W. Johnson, Statesville Hubert E. Olive, Jr., Lexington 23 Ralph Davis, North Wilkesboro John T. Kilby, Jefferson Samuel T. Osborne, Wilkesboro 24 J. Ray Braswell, Newland Robert H. Lacey, Newland 25 Livingston Vernon, Morganton Edward J. Crotty, Hickory Bill J. Martin, Hickory L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton 26 Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte P. B. Beachum, Jr., Charlotte Walter H. Bennett, Jr., Charlotte Larry Thomas Black, Charlotte L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte William G. Jones, Charlotte James E. Lanning, Charlotte District 27A Lewis Bulwinkle, Gastonia Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia J. Ralph Phillips, Gastonia Donald E. Ramseur, Gastonia 27B A. Max Harris, Ellenboro George W. Hamrick, Shelby 28 James O. Israel, Jr., Candler Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden Peter L. Roda, Asheville William Marion Styles, Black Mountain 29 Robert C. Cash, Brevard Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton 30 Robert Leatherwood, III, Bryson City J. Charles McDarris, Waynesville John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy + The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 24 THE DISTRICT COURTS North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with original jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of the cases handled by the State's court system. There were 126 district court judgeships at the begining of 1978-79; one additional judgeship was created with the division, effective January 1, 1979, of District 19 into Districts 19A and 19B. District court judges are elected to four-year terms by the voters of their respective dis-tricts. A total of 589 magistrate positions (some part-time) were authorized in 1978-79. Magistrates are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nomi-nations submitted by the clerk of superior court of their county, and are supervised by the chief district court judge of their district. Jurisdiction The jurisdiction of the district court extends to vir-tually all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in most felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involun-tary commitments and re-commitments to mental hos-pitals, domestic relations cases, and to general civil cases where the amount in controversy is $5,000 or less. Upon the plantiffs request, a civil case where the amount in controversy is $500* or less may be denomi-nated a "small claims" case and assigned by the chief district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magis-trates are also empowered to try worthless check crimi-nal cases when the value of the check does not exceed $300** and the offender has fewer than four previous worthless check convictions; magistrates may also ac-cept waivers of appearances and pleas of guilty in cer-tain traffic cases. Magistrates conduct initial hearings to fix conditions of release for arrested offenders and are empowered to issue arrest and search warrants. Administration A chief district court judge is appointed for each ju-dicial district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from among the elected judges in the respective dis-tricts. Subject to the Chief Justice's general supervision, each chief judge exercises administrative supervision and authority over the operation of the district courts and magistrates in his district. Each chief judge is re-sponsible for: scheduling sessions of district court and assigning judges; supervising the calendaring of civil cases; assigning matters to magistrates; making ar-rangements for court reporting and jury trials in civil cases; and supervising the discharge of the clerical func-tions, in the district courts, of the clerks of superior court of the district. The 33 chief district judges meet in conference at least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual Increased to $800, effective October 1, 1979(G.S. 7A-2IO). ** Increased to $400, effective October 1, 1979 (G.S. 7A-273). conference adopts a uniform schedule o\' traffic of-fenses and fines for their violation for use by magis-trates and clerks of court in accepting defendants' waivers of appearance and guilty pleas. The Conference of Chief District Court Judges (Officers as of June 30, 1979) J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington, President John B. Chaffin, Elizabeth City, Vice President Resources A total of $12,745,520 was expended for operating expenses of the district courts in 1978-79, an increase of 14.9% over 1977-78 expenditures of $11,095,953. In-cluded in the total are expenses of court reporters for district courts as well as personnel costs of district court judges and magistrates. The 1978-79 total is 20.5% of the General Fund expenditures for operation of the entire Judicial Department. 1978-79 Caseload Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 1,432,067 cases were filed in the district courts from July I, 1978 through June 30, 1979. As the black bars in the first chart on the following page illustrate, dis-trict court case filings have varied from year to year in the last four and one-half years, with the overall trend being one of gradual increase. The 1978-79 total of 1,432,067 cases filed is less than one percent fewer than the total of 1,440,378 cases filed during the 1978 calen-dar year, but almost seven percent more than the 1975 filings total of 1,340,556 cases. A total of 1,402,518 district court cases were dis-posed of during 1978-79. Figures for total dispositions over the last four and one-half years, illustrated by the white bars in the chart following, have varied up and .down with the variations in case filings. The total of 1,402,518 cases disposed of during 1978-79 is less than one percent below the total of 1,407,360 cases disposed of during the 1978 calendar year, but about six percent above the 1975 dispositions total of 1,322,359 cases. The numbers of district court cases, both civil and criminal, which remained pending at the end of the last five annual reporting periods are shown in the second chart on the following page. A total of 244,922 cases were pending on June 30, 1979, a slight increase (about one percent) over the 242,520 cases pending as of De-cember 31, 1978. More detailed information on district court civil and criminal caseloads is contained in Part IV of this Report. 25 DISTRICT COURT CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITION, 1975 — 1978-79* 1,600,000 1 ,400,000 1,200,000 •jr. 1 ,000,000 ir. <u 800,000 C 600,000 as 400,000 OQ 7 Z 200,000 (i 440.378 1,340,556 .360 1.432.067 | 4025|8 Filings Dispositions DISTRICT COURT CASES PENDING AT YEAR END, 1975 — 1978-79 275,000 250,000 225,000 200,000 175,000 1 50,000 125,000 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 242,520 244,922 Dec. 31, 1975 Dec. 31 1976 Dec. 31 1977 Dec. 31 1978 June 10, 1979 *The data in this chart arc lor calendar years 1975 through 1978 and lor fiscal year 1978-79. To facilitate comparisons and depicl recent trends in case filings and dispositions, cases Hied or disposed of between Jul) I and December 31, 1978, are included in both the figures lor calendar year 1978 and the figures for fiscal year 1978-79. Juvenile cases and district court hearings relating to involuntary commitments or recommitments to mental hospitals are not included in these figures; these matters were not reported to AOC by case-numbers and filing and disposition dates during 1978-79. Some data on these proceedings are available: see Section 3 of Part IV (juvenile cases) and "Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents" in Part III (commitment and recommitment hearings). 26 THE DISTRICT COURTS Educational Activity Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Depart-ment sponsored the following educational activities for district court judges in 1978-79: • a conference on juveniles and learning disabilities, September 15-16 in Burlington, attended by 32 judges; • the district judges' Fall Seminar, October 19-21 in Asheville, attended by 87 judges; • three orientation sessions for new judges, January 5-6, January 19-20 and February 16-17 at the Insti-tute of Government in Chapel Hill, attended by a total of 12 new judges and appointees; • a conference on commitment of juveniles to train-ing schools, March 30-31 in Durham, attended by 43 judges; and • the Summer Seminar o[ the Association of District Court Judges, June 17-20 in Charlotte, attended by 95 judges. By statute, new magistrates are required to satisfac-torily complete a course of basic training of at least 40 hours within six months of taking office. Two sessions of this course were offered at the Institute of Govern-ment in Chapel Hill in 1978-79. The first (July 17-21 and July 31-August 4) was attended by 24 new magis-trates; the second (February 5-9 and February 12-16) was attended by 52 new magistrates. The Judicial Department also sponsored: • the Fall Meeting of the Magistrates Association, October 16-18 in Asheville, attended by 102 magis-trates; • three sessions of a refresher course, October 23 in Chapel Hill (86 magistrates), October 30 in Green-ville (38 magistrates), and November 10 in Fayetteville (30 magistrates); and • the Spring Meeting of the Magistrates Association, May 14-16 in Raleigh, attended by 70 magistrates. The Association of District Court Judges (Officers as of June 30, 1978) John M. Walker, Wilmington, President Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton, Vice President Robert J. Leatherwood, III, Bryson City, Secretary- Treasurer Hubert E. Olive, Lexington, and Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton, Additional Executive Committee Members 21 DISTRICT ATTORNEYS (As of June 30, 1979) District 1 THOMAS S. WATTS, Elizabeth City 2 WILLIAM C. GRIFFIN, JR.. Williamston 3 ELI BLOOM, Greenville 4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, Jacksonville 5 W. ALLEN COBB, Wilmington 6 W. H. S. BURGWYN, JR., Woodland 7 HOWARDS. BONEY, JR., Tarboro 8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro 9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford 10 J. RANDOLPH RILEY, Raleigh 11 JOHN W.TWISDALE, Smithfield 12 EDWARD W.GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 13 LEE J. GREER, Whiteville 14 DAN K. EDWARDS, JR.. Durham ISA HERBERT F. PIERCE, Graham I5B WADE BARBER, JR., Pittsboro 16 JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton District 17 FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR., Reidsville 18 MICHAEL A. SCHLOSSER, Greensboro 19A JAMES E. ROBERTS, Concord 19B RUSSELL G. WALKER, JR., Asheboro 20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe 21 DONALD K. TISDALE, Winston-Salem 22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington 23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro 24 CLYDE M. ROBERTS, Marshall 25 DONALD E.GREENE, Newton 26 PETER S.GILCHRIST. Charlotte 27A JOSEPH G. BROWN, Gastonia 27B W. HAMPTON CHILDS. JR., Lincolnton 28 RONALD C. BROWN. Asheville 29 M. LEONARD LOWE, Rutherfordton 30 MARCELLUS BUCHANAN, III, Sylva 28 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS The State is divided into prosecutorial districts which correspond to its judicial districts, and a district attor-ney is elected by the voters of each of the 33 districts for a four-year term. Duties The district attorney represents the State in all crimi-nal actions brought in the superior and district courts in his district. In addition to his prosecutorial func-tions, the district attorney is responsible for calendar-ing criminal cases for trial. Resources Each district attorney is authorized to employ, on a full-time basis, the number of assistant district attor-neys specified by statute for his district. As of June 30, 1979, a total of 179 assistant district attorneys were au-thorized for the 33 districts, 173 of them paid with State funds and six with federal LEAA funds in three "career criminal prosecution units" in Districts 10, 12 and 26. Including LEAA-funded personnel, the district attorney of District 26 (Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff - 17 assistants; the smallest staffs were in Districts 23 and 24 — two assistant district attorneys in each. Each district attorney is also authorized to employ, on a full-time basis, an administrative assistant to assist in preparing cases for trial and to expedite the criminal court docket. The district attorney in 18 of the 33 dis-tricts is empowered to employ an investigative assist-ant, to aid in the investigation of cases preparatory to trial. 1978-1979 Caseload A total of 56,591 criminal cases were filed in superior courts from July 1, 1978 through June 30, 1979; 32,129 of these cases were felonies and 24,462 were misde-meanors on appeal from district courts. Combined with the 17,894 cases pending on July 1, 1978, the district at-torneys 1 superior court caseload for the year totalled 74,485 cases. Of these a total of 54,587 cases (30,979 felonies and 23,608 misdemeanor appeals) were dis-posed of, 73.3% of the caseload. Still pending in superi-or courts on June 30, 1979 were 19,898 cases (11,734 felonies and 8,164 misdemeanor appeals), which is an increase of 1 1.2% over the number pending on July 1, 1978. In district courts, a total of 1,152,519 criminal cases were filed during 1978-79 (796,227 motor vehicle cases and 356,292 other criminal cases). A total of 136.288 cases were pending as of July 1, 1978; this figure, com-bined with cases filed during the year, totalled 1,288,807 criminal cases to be handled in district court. This cannot be regarded as the district attorneys" "case-load," however, for many district court criminal cases are disposed of by defendant's waiver of appearance and plea ol~ guilty before a magistrate or clerk of su-perior court staff, and these cases do not require the district attorneys' attention. A total of 522,452 cases were disposed of by waiver in 1978-79, and an addi-tional 24,204 cases which were filed in 1978-79 were disposed of by waiver after June 30, 1979; when these are excluded, the district attorneys' district court case-load for the year totalled 742,151 cases. Of these, 612,187 were disposed of, 82.5% of the caseload. As of June 30, 1979, 154,168 criminal cases were pending in the district courts of the State, an increase of 13.1% over the number pending on July 1, 1978. Additional information on the district attorneys' su-perior court and district court caseloads is included in Sections 2 and 3, respectively, of Part IV of this Report. 29 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS Educational Activity Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Depart-ment sponsored the following educational activities for district attorneys and their staffs in 1978-79: • a conference for administrative assistants, August 29-31 at the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill, attended by 20 administrative assistants, one investigative assistant, and one secretary; • an orientation session for new prosecutors, Octo-ber 17-20 at the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill, attended by 24 new assistant district attor-neys, one administrative assistant, and one investi-gative assistant; the Fall Conference of the District Attorneys As-sociation, October 26-28 in Chapel Hill, attended by 11 district attorneys and 71 assistant district attorneys; a seminar on homicide for prosecutors, March 19-23 in Chapel Hill, attended by 16 district attor-neys, 58 assistant district attorneys, and two inves-tigative assistants; and the June Conference of the District Attorneys As-sociation, June 17-20 near Charlotte, attended by 16 district attorneys, 76 assistant district attorneys, and one administrative assistant. The District Attorneys Association (Officers as of June 30, 1979) Peter S. Gilchrist, Charlotte, President Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City, Vice President Joe Freeman Britt, Lumberton, Vice President, Legislative Affairs D. Keith Teague, Elizabeth City, Secretary- Treasurer M) CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT (As of June 30, 1979) COUNTY CLERK OF COURT COUNTY Alamance Louise B. Wilson Johnston Alexander Martha J. Adams Jones Alleghany Joan B. Atwood Lee Anson R. Frank Hightower Lenoir Ashe Virginia W. Johnson Lincoln Avery Billy J. Vance Macon Beaufort Bessie J. Cherry Madison Bertie Thomas S. Speight Martin Bladen Smithy S. Harris McDowell Brunswick K. Gregory Bellamy Mecklenburg Buncombe J. Ray Elingburg Mitchell Burke Major A. Joines Montgomery Cabarrus Estus B. White Moore Caldwell Mary Hood Thompson Nash Camden Caroline G. Halstead New Hanover Carteret Mary Austin Northampton Caswell J. P. Moore Onslow Catawba Eunice W. Mauney Orange Chatham Janice Oldham Pamlico Cherokee Rose Mary Crooke Pasquotank Chowan Lena M. Leary Pender Clay Ralph A. Allison Perquimans Cleveland Ruth S. Dedmon Person Columbus Lacy R. Thompson Pitt Craven Dorothy Pate Polk Cumberland George T. Griffin Randolph Currituck Wiley B. Elliot Richmond Dare C. S. Meekins Robeson Davidson Hugh Shepherd Rockingham Davie Delores C. Jordan Rowan Duplin John A. Johnson Rutherford Durham James Leo Carr Sampson Edgecombe Curtis Weaver Scotland Forsyth A. E. Blackburn Stanly Franklin RalphS. Knott Stokes Gaston Betty B. Jenkins Surry Gates Tobe Daniels, Jr. Swain Graham O. W. Hooper, Jr. Transylvania Granville Mary Ruth C. Nelms Tyrrell Greene Cleo W. McKeel Union Guilford Joseph E. Slate, Jr. Vance Halifax J. C. Taylor Wake Harnett Georgia Lee Brown Warren Haywood William G. Henry Washington Henderson Thomas H. Thompson Watauga Hertford Richard T. Vann Wayne Hoke Juanita Edmund Wilkes Hyde W. Allen Credle Wilson Iredell Carl G. Smith Yadkin Jackson Frank Watson, Jr. Yancey CLERK OF COURT Will R. Crocker Ronald H. Metts Sion H.Kelly M. E. Creech Nellie L. Bess A. W. Perry James W. Cody Mary K. Wynne Ruth B.Williams Robert M. Blackburn Arthur Ray Ledford Charles M. Johnson Charles M. McLeod Rachel M. Joyner Louise D. Rehder R. Jennings White, Jr. Everitte Barbee Frank S. Frederick Sadie W. Edwards Frances W. Thompson Frances N. Futch W. J. Ward W. Thomas Humphries Sandra Gaskins Judy P. Arledge John H. Skeen Miriam F. Greene Ben G. Floyd, Jr. FrankieC. Williams Francis Glover Joan M. Jenkins Charlie T. McCullen J. Mason McGregor Joe H. Lowder Robert Miller David J. Beal Harold H. Sandlin Marian M. McMahon Jessie L. Spencer Nola H. Cunningham Mary Lou M. Barnett J. Russell Nipper Anne F. Davis Louise S. Allen John T. Bingham Shelton Jordan Wayne Roope W. A. Boone, Jr. Harold J. Long Arnold E. Higgins 31 THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT A Clerk of Superior Court for each county is elected for four-year terms by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 counties. The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide special proceedings and is, ex officio, judge of probate, in addition to performing record-keeping and administrative functions for both the su-perior and district courts of his county. Jurisdiction The original jurisdiction of the clerk of the superior court includes the probate of wills and administration of decedents' estates. It also includes such "special pro-ceedings" as adoptions, condemnations of private property under the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings to establish boundaries, foreclosures, and certain proceedings to administer the estates of minors and incompetent adults. The right of appeal from the clerks' judgments in such cases lies to the superior court. The clerk of superior court is also empowered to is-sue search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and other process necessary to execute the judgments entered in the superior and district courts of his county. For certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is authorized to accept defendants' waiver of appearance and plea of guilty and to impose a fine in accordance with a schedule established by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges. Administration The clerk of superior court performs administrative duties for both the superior and district courts of his county. Among these duties are the maintenance of court records and indexes, the control and accounting of funds, and the furnishing of information to the Ad-ministrative Office of the Courts. In most of the 100 counties of North Carolina, civil case trial calendars are set by calendar committees chaired by the clerk of superior court. (Criminal case trial calendars are set by the district attorney.) In 1978-79 these committees had been replaced by "trial court administrators" in three judicial districts (Dis-tricts 10, 22 and 28) on an experimental basis. Working under the supervision of the senior resident superior court judges these administrators had day-to-day re-sponsibility for the calendaring of superior court civil cases. The 1979 General Assembly provided funds for continued experimentation with this method of calen-dar administration in 10 of the State's 33 judidicial dis-tricts. Resources A total of $21,457,921 was expended in 1978-79 for operation of the 100 clerks of superior court offices, an increase of 11.6% over 1977-78 expenditures of $19,224,801. Included in the total were expenditures for jurors' and witnesses' fees, supplies, postage, telephone and office expenses for all local Judicial Department personnel, and the salaries and benefits of the clerks and their staffs. The 1978-79 total made up 34.5% of General Fund expenditures for operating expenses of the entire Judicial Department. 1978-79 Caseload Filings of estates cases totalled 32,926 cases in 1978-79, an increase of less than one percent over the number (32,602 cases) filed in the 1978 calendar year; filings have increased 3.7% since the 1977 calendar year when 31,742 estates cases were filed. A total of 31,378 estates cases were disposed of in 1978-79, up 1.7% over dispositions in 1978 (30,841 cases) and 7.4%. over dispo-sitions in 1977 (29,222 cases). Although rising at a slower rate, filings of estates cases continue to out-number dispositions and the number of cases pending rose from 47,467 on December 31, 1978, to 48,560 on June 30, 1979 — an increase of 2.3%. There were 27,799 special proceedings filed in 1978-79, an increase of 2.7% over the 1978 calendar year total of 27,078; compared to the 1977 filings total (27,156 cases), the 1978-79 total is an increase of 2.4%. Dispositions of special proceedings totalled 26,717 cases in 1978-79, a decrease of two percent from the 1978 calendar year total of 27,266 cases and of less than one percent from the 1977 total of 26,888 cases. There were 20,196 special proceedings pending before the clerks as of June 30, 1979, an increase of 1.9%> over the total (19,815 cases) pending on December 31, 1978. More detailed information on the clerks' estates and special proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this Report. 33 THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT Educational Activity Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Depart-ment sponsored the following educational activities for clerks of superior court in 1978-79: • the Annual Conference of the Association of Clerks of Superior Court, July 26-28 in Nags Head, attended by 68 clerks; the Annual Conference of the Association of As-sistant and Deputy Clerks of Superior Court. July 19-21 in Charlotte, attended by 210 assistant and deputy clerks; and an orientation training session for recently elected and appointed clerks of superior court. January 8-12 in Asheboro, attended by 25 new clerks. Association of Clerks of Superior Court (Officers as of June 30, 1979) Ruth B. Williams, McDowell County, President A. E. Blackburn, Forsyth County, First Vice President Ben G. Floyd, Jr., Robeson County, Second Vice President W. A. Boone, Jr., Wilson County, Secretary Louise B. Wilson, Alamance County, Treasurer Major Joines, Burke County Shelton Jordon, Wayne County, and Sion H. Kelly, Lee County (ex officio). Additional Executive Committee Members 34 PUBLIC DEFENDERS In 1978-79 there were five public defenders in North Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 12, 18, 26, 27A and 28; these officials and their assistants provide legal representation for persons in designated categories who are determined to be indigent. The public defender for District 28 is appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from recommendations submitted by the district bar; for the other districts, the appointment is by the Governor from recommendations of the respec-tive district bar. Their terms are four years. Each public defender is by statute provided one full-time assistant; additional full-time or part-time assistants may be au-thorized by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Duties A person is determined to be indigent if he is found "financially unable to secure legal representation." He is entitled to State-paid legal representation in: any proceeding which may result in (or which seeks relief from) confinement, a fine of $500 or more, or extradic-tion to another state; a proceeding alleging mental ill-ness or incapacity which may result in hospitalization, sterilization, or the loss of certain property rights; and juvenile proceedings which may result in confinement, transfer to superior court for a felony trial, or a transfer of custody upon a finding of neglect. Most cases of State-paid representation of indigents in these five districts are handled by the public defend-ers. In unusual circumstances, such as the existence of a conflict of interests, an indigent in one of these districts may be represented by private counsel, appointed by the court and paid a fee by the State for his legal ser-vices. In the other 28 districts the assigned private counsel system is the only one used. Resources A total of SI, 149, 780 was expended for the operation of the five public defenders' offices in 1978-79, an in-crease of 11.5% over 1977-78 expenditures of $1,031,400. The 1978-79 total is 1.8% of all General Fund expenditures for the operating expenses of the en-tire Judicial Department. 1978-79 Caseload The five public defenders' offices handled a total of 10,972 cases, including both trials and appeals, in 1978-79. This represents an increase of 3.2%- over the 10,630 cases handled by these offices during the 1977-78 fiscal year. Additional information on the operation of these offices is contained in Part III, "Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents." Educational Activity Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Depart-ment sponsored the following educational activities for public defenders in 1978-79: • a Fall training session, October 11-13 at the Insti-tute of Government in Chapel Hill, attended by the five public defenders and 21 assistant defend-ers; and • the Public Defenders Association Spring Confer-ence, April 25-27 at the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill, attended by the five public defenders and 21 assistant public defenders. PUBLIC DEFENDERS (As of June 30, 1979) District 12 Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville District 18 Wallace G. Harrelson, Greensboro District 26 Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte District 27A Curtis O. Harris, Gastonia District 28 J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville The Association of Public Defenders (Officers as of June 30, 1979) Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville, President Lawrence B. Langston, Gastonia, Vice President Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte, Secretary Deno G. Economous, Greensboro, Treasurer 35 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS The Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and his staff perform a variety of functions for the Judicial Department; these are enumerated in Arti-cle 29 of Chapter 7A of the North Carolina General Statutes. The Director is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and serves at his pleasure, as does the Assistant Director, who is specifically charged with assisting the Chief Justice in making assignments of superior court judges and assisting the Supreme Court in preparing calendars of superior court trial ses-sions, as well as performing other functions assigned by the Chief Justice and the Director of AOC. A total of $1,361,382 was expended from the State's General Fund for operating expense of AOC during 1978-79, an increase of 15.5% over 1977-78 expendi-tures of $1,178,529. The 1978-79 total is 2.1%- of Gener-al Fund expenditures for operation of the entire Judi-cial Department. In addition to the Director and Assistant Director, there are seven component parts of AOC, as illustrated in the chart below. Their respective assignments and activities in 1978-79 are summarized in the following pages. ORGANIZATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS (As of June 30, 1979) CHIEF JUSTICE of the SUPREME COURT COUNSEL DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR CLERKS' SERVICES DIVISION FISCAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION JUVENILE SERVICES DIVISION PERSONNEL DIVISION RESEARCH & PLANNING DIVISION SYSTEMS DIVISION )6 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS Clerks' Services Division The Clerks' Services Division monitors the record-keeping procedures in the clerks' offices located in the 100 counties, develops recommendations for improved office operations, and provides special assistance to individual offices where that is required from time to time. This Division reviews issues of staffing adequacy and personnel job descriptions for the clerks' offices, and participates in training activities involving clerk personnel. Liaison is maintained with other agencies or governmental offices which have special working rela-tionships with the clerks' offices: the Department of Archives and History on records management and re-tention, the Division of Motor Vehicles on traffic case reports, and county governments on space require-ments in clerks' offices. Following each legislative ses-sion, the Division reviews new legislation affecting the clerks' offices and participates in disseminating infor-mation on changes in the laws and in developing any record-keeping procedures required by new legislation. During the past year, this Division participated in the annual conference of the clerks of superior court and the annual conference of assistant and deputy clerks. In addition, the Division planned and conduct-ed a four-day special training conference for newly elected or appointed clerks of superior court. Office of Counsel The Counsel for the Administrative Office of the Courts provides legal advice for AOC staff as well as for other administrative officials in the Judicial Depart-ment, particularly the clerks of superior court. Another major area of responsibility is the development (and up-dating) of the variety of forms used in the trial courts for instituting, processing and disposing of cases. A third category of responsibility consists of par-ticipation in a variety of educational or training activity for personnel of the Judicial Department: presentations at annual conferences of the clerks of court, at confer-ences of assistant and deputy clerks of court, and at specialized group meetings scheduled throughout the year. During the 1978-79 fiscal year requests for legal ad-vice averaged 18 to 20 a day. Most of these requests were from clerks' offices. At the present time, more than 250 forms have been developed and approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts for use in pro-cessing the large variety of cases in the trial courts. Each legislative session produces changes in the laws which in turn require changes in existing forms or the development of new forms. Fiscal Management Division This Division has responsibility for the management of the fiscal affairs of the Judicial Department, includ-ing budgeting, disbursing and the related accounting, auditing and reporting activity. In addition, the Divi-sion has responsibility for purchasing and printing, and for warehousing and distribution of supplies for the Judicial Department. The Division formulates policy and procedures for the fiscal operations of the Judicial Department and supervises their administration. A significant portion of these functions pertain to the fiscal operations of the offices of the clerks of superior court located in each of the 100 counties of the State. A uniform accounting system is prescribed for the clerks' offices. The clerks' offices receive, account for and disburse court costs, fees, fines and bond forfeitures, as well as a variety of other receipts (judgment payments, estate settlements, trusts) which are paid into the clerks' of-fices as a result of court actions and proceedings. During the 1978-79 fiscal year, expenditures for the operation of the Judicial Department totalled $64,830,830. During the same year the Department's total receipts of court costs, fees, fines and forfeitures amounted to $48,060,916. In accord with applicable law, these receipts were disbursed as follows: $21,246,744 remitted to the State Treasurer for the State's General Fund and $2,518,410 for the Law En-forcement Officers' Retirement Fund; $23,488,366 dis-bursed to the several counties of the State: and $807,396 disbursed to municipalities throughout the State. Juvenile Services Division This Division administers the Statewide juvenile court counselor program for children alleged or adjudi-cated to be delinquent or undisciplined. Services in-clude intake (pre-hearing studies of children alleged to be delinquent or undisciplined); probation (supervision within the community for those adjudicated to be de-linquent or undisciplined and who have not been com-mitted to training school): and aftercare (supervision within the community for children conditionally re-leased from the training schools). The services are ad-ministered locally by court counselors in each judicial district, with each district having a chief court coun-selor in charge of the Division's functions in the district. Court counselors worked with 20,743 intake cases from July 1, 1978 to June 30, 1979, diverting 9,372 cases from the juvenile courts. Of those cases diverted. 37 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 5,236 were resolved without referrals and 4,136 cases were referred to other resources based in the communi-ties, such as mental health clinics and county depart-ments of social services. During the year 9,332 cases were added to the court counselors' probation case-loads, with the daily average State caseload being 6,378. Prior to July 1, 1978, a so-called "status offender" (a child found to have violated a law applicable only to children) who was put on probation and later found to have violated the conditions of his probation, could be committed to a training school as a "delinquent" juve-nile. By restricting the definition of "delinquent" to juveniles who have committed criminal offenses, the 1977 General Assembly in effect prohibited the incar-ceration of status offenders in North Carolina. Al-though the long-term effects of this change have yet to be determined, an immediate impact on the caseload of the Juvenile Services Division was a significant de-crease in the number of children (approximately 1,164) placed on probation for status offenses between July 1, 1978 and June 30, 1979. A major accomplishment of the Division during 1978-79 was the establishment of minimum service de-livery standards for the Division. Delivery of services in each judicial district is now measured by these stand-ards under a program of periodic reviews and evalua-tion. Training continued to receive major emphasis during the year, with the following activities: • three orientation sessions (October 1978, March 1979, and June 1979) for new court counselors; • a required course in seven sessions for court counselors, counselor trainees, intake counselors and district supervisors, with a total of 226 persons attending; • a required course for chief court counselors and administrative personnel, attended by 35 persons; • an optional course in two sessions for secretaries who deal regularly with troubled adolescents, at-tended by 36 secretaries; • 12 separate special interest courses in counseling techniques and theories, presented as optional training in a total of 23 sessions across the State, with a total attendance of 399; • a conference on juveniles with learning disabilities, attended by 32 district court judges; and • a conference on the juvenile commitment order and training schools, attended by 43 district court judges. In addition, tuition and registration fees were paid for 150 Juvenile Services Division personnel, to attend college courses and educational workshops and confer-ences. During May of 1979 an independent evaluation of the Division's training activities was conducted by the Training Director of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Personnel Division This Division provides the personnel administration and analysis of staffing requirements for the Judicial Department, which has approximately 3300 employees. The Division also has responsibility for the assignment of court reporters for the trial courts. In addition to administering its on-going services and programs, the Division gave particular attention to the following new matters during the 1978-79 fiscal year: • Changes in salary administration policy were de-veloped and approved for implementation begin-ning July 1, 1979, with a principal new feature being provision that supervisors could consider a half-step merit increment as well as a full-step increment. Previously, an employee had to be ap-proved for either a full-step increment or no merit increment. • A new appointments policy for the Judicial De-partment became effective July 1, 1978, providing for a probationary appointment period for new employees. • Comprehensive employee relations policies and procedures were adopted in April 1978 for person-nel of the Administrative Office of the Courts, with the Personnel Administrator acting as the first level of appeal from an employee's division. Since the inception of this program, 13 such ap-peals have been heard and acted upon by the Per-sonnel Administrator. • Comprehensive classification and pay studies were conducted in the offices of 10 clerks of superior court, including two of the largest clerks' offices (Forsyth and Mecklenburg Counties). Planning and scheduling of similar studies of other clerks' offices for the coming year was accomplished. • Studies were begun on the possible adoption of a Service Awards Program for Judicial Department employees. Research and Planning Division This Division has responsibility for conducting re-search and preparing reports and papers on problems or issues relevant to the courts of North Carolina. The Division provides the staff for the North Carolina Judi-cial Planning Committee. (This Committee, established by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in 1977, con-siders problems or issues affecting the operation of the 38 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS State's courts and has a special role in the allocation of LEAA funds available to the court system.) In addi-tion, the Division has responsibilities for the LEAA grants management functions for the Judicial Depart-ment, and for the compilation, printing and distribu-tion of the Annual Reports of the Administrative Of-fice of the Courts. During the 1978-79 fiscal year the Division prepared papers and made presentations to the Judicial Planning Committee on coordination of witness attendance at criminal trials; on the comparative need for additional district court judges in certain judicial districts; on a "trial court administrator" pilot project operation in three judicial districts; on retirement of magistrates; and on the variety of proposals considered for LEAA funding during the 1979-80 fiscal year. In September 1978 a two-volume report was com-pleted and released on North Carolina trial court facili-ties in the 100 counties of the State. This was the cul-mination of a major three-year study project of the North Carolina State University School of Design, pur-suant to a contract with the Administrative Office of the Courts. Division staff carried out planning func-tions and contract administration for this project, col-lected significant portions of the data for the study, drafted portions of the report, and provided editorial review and approval on behalf of the Administrative Office of the Courts. During the year the Director of the Division made a study and analysis of the law of homicide in North Carolina as affected by recent decisions of the United State Supreme Court and prepared a special report on this subject for the North Carolina Judicial Council. The LEAA Grants Management Section was in-volved in the on-going administration of 24 LEAA-funded projects during the year. Applications for seven projects were prepared and approved for LEAA fund-ing by the Governor's Crime Commission (the State Planning Agency for LEAA purposes). In addition, the LEAA Grants Manager participated with representa-tives of the Governor's Crime Commission in a total of 13 monitoring visits for review of various Judicial Department projects supported by LEAA funds. Systems Division This Division has the responsibility for development and implementation of an automated information sys-tem for the Judicial Department. The Division also handles the data entry and elec-tronic processing of case data which is reported weekly (on manually completed forms) by the clerks of superi-or court in the 100 counties to the Administrative Office of the Courts. In addition, the Division handles the data entry and electronic processing of manually reported information on juvenile services. During the fiscal year more than three million records of such in-formation were processed, providing on a periodic basis numerous computer-produced reports. (The sys-tem of manually reported data will be phased out as the Judicial Department's automated information sys-tem is implemented). Computer equipment was procured for the imple-mentation of the "criminal component" of the court information system for an initial twelve-county pilot region which includes Judicial Districts 7, 9, 10 and 1 1; and computer programming for the criminal compo-nent was developed and tested. Telecommunication lines were installed connecting the first two counties (Franklin and Vance) with the AOC computer facilities, and terminals and printers were installed in both of these counties. Training of clerk office personnel in the operation of the new automated system was begun in Franklin and Vance counties, with the implementation of the "crimi-nal component" of the system expected in the near future. 39 THE JUDICIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE (Members as of June 30, 1979)** Associate Justice J. Frank Huskins, Raleigh, Chairman Magistrate C. E. Baker, Holly Springs District Court Judge Thomas D. Cooper, Jr., Burling- Administrative Officer o( the Courts Bert M. Monta-gue, Raleigh ton District Attorney Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Reidsville Public Defender Wallace C. Harrelson, Greensboro Representative Edward S. Holmes, Pittsboro Clerk of Superior Court Rachel M. Joyner, Nashville Superior Court Judge Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lum-berton Chief Court of Appeals Judge Naomi E. Morris, Raleigh President of the N.C. State Bar Grady B. Scott, Gas-tonia President of the N.C. Bar Association Clarence Walker, Charlotte Senator Willis P. Whichard, Durham 'All members serve at the pleasure of the Supreme Court. THE JUDICIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE IN 1978-79 The North Carolina Judicial Planning Committee was appointed by the Supreme Court in 1977. The Committee considers problems affecting the operation of the State's courts, areas in need of improvement, and issues relevant to the court system as a whole. In addition, the Committee plays a special role in the allo-cation of LEAA funds available to the court system. Staff assistance for the Committee is provided by the Research and Planning Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts. During the 1978-79 fiscal year the Judicial Planning Committee considered reports on: (1) the special study of North Carolina courthouses and other judicial facilities (published in Septem-ber, 1978); (2) the coordination of attendance of witnesses at criminal trials in the several prosecutorial dis-tricts throughout the State; (3) the comparative need for additional district court judges in the first and 29th judicial districts; (4) the pilot-project "trial-court administrator' 1 pro-gram operating in the 10th, 22nd and 28th judi-cial districts. The Judicial Planning Committee also considered proposals for LEAA program funds for federal fiscal year 1979-80, and concluded that the following listed allocations of LEAA funds should be made: (1) $996,833 for continued development and imple-mentation of an electronic data processing sys-tem for North Carolina courts; (2) $62,825 for witness-attendance coordination pro-jects in several district attorneys' offices; (3) $69,000 for development and distribution oi a reference manual for clerk of superior court staff; (4) $7,100 for operating expenses for the Orange County Dispute Settlement Center; (5) $98,075 for specialized personnel in the Office of the Attorney General to handle criminal case appeals; (6) $157,000 for education and training of Judicial Department personnel working in the juvenile justice area; and (7) $25,950 for preparation and publication of a re-vised version of Rules of Procedure for Children in the District Court and a field manual for per-sonnel of the Juvenile Services Division. With the exception of some reduction in the amount for juvenile justice education and training, the Commit-tee's recommendations were adopted by the Governor's Crime Commission contingent upon the availability of federal funds in the anticipated amounts.* *These allocations were subsequently reduced by approximately 27% after a reduction, by the Congress, in the funds available under the LEAA program. 41 THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL Appointed by the Chief Justice Associate Justice James G. Exum, Jr., Raleigh Chairman Members as of June 30, 1979) Appointed by the Lieutenant Governor Senator Julian R. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids Senator Robert S. Swain, Asheville Superior Court Judge Henry A. McKinnon, Lumberton Superior Court Judge Lacy Thornburg, Webster Chief District Court Judge J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham District Attorney William Griffin, Jr., Williamston District Attorney James E. Roberts, Concord Appointed by the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Judge Earl W. Vaughn, Raleigh Appointed by the Governor Gerald W. Hayes, Jr., Dunn Robert C. Hunter, Marion Appointed by the Speaker of the House Representative H. Parks Helms, Charlotte Representative James F. Morgan, High Point Appointed by the Attorney General R. Bruce White, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh Appointed by the Council of the N. C. State Bar W. Marion Allen, Elkin Leon Corbett, Burgaw Ann H. Phillips, Asheville Ralph H. Ramsey, Jr., Brevard Dallas A. Cameron, Jr., Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Executive Secretary THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL IN 1978-79 The Judicial Council has been in continuous exist-ence since it was established by the 1949 General As-sembly. Statutory provisions relating to membership, terms of office, and the duties of the Council are set out in Article 31 of Chapter 7A of the General Stat-utes. Culminating work which started in 1978, the Judicial Council transmitted its report to the Governor and the General Assembly in March, 1979. The Council recom-mends enactment of bills providing: (1) for addition of an aggravating circumstance to the existing statutory list which is considered in capital cases; (2) for prohibition of conviction as an accessory be-fore the fact on an indictment which charged the defendant with the principal felony; (3) that punishment for burglary would be imprison-ment for not less than ten years or more than life; (4) for procedure for the selection of alternate jurors; (5) for revision of Article 6, Chapter 14 of the North Carolina General Statutes relating to homicide; (6) for extension of the time of coverage of a bail bond; and (7) for elimination of the use of a jury to determine sentences in capital cases where there is no aggra-vating circumstance. The first four of the above listed proposals were en-acted by the 1979 General Assembly. The latter three proposals listed above were held over for further con-sideration during the 1980 session of the General As-sembly. 43 THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION (Members as of June 30, 1979) Appointed by the Chief Justice Court of Appeals Judge Edward B. Clark, Raleigh, Chairman Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro District Court Judge L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro Appointed by the Governor Marvin B. Koonce, Jr., Raleigh Susan Whittington, Wilkesboro Appointed by the Council of the N.C. State Bar Jerome B. Clark, Jr., Fayetteville Robert G. Sanders, Charlotte Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary 44 THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION July 1, 1978-June 30, 1979 The Judicial Standards Commission was established by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional amendment approved by the voters at the general elec-tion in November, 1972. Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Su-preme Court may censure or remove any judge for wil-ful misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct preju-dicial to the administration of justice that brings the ju-dicial office into disrepute. In addition, upon recom-mendation of the Commission, the Supreme Court may remove any judge for mental or physical incapacity interfering with the performance of his duties, which is, or is likely to become, permanent. Where a recommendation for censure or removal in-volves a justice of the Supreme Court, the recommen-dation and supporting record is filed with the Court of Appeals which has and proceeds under the same au-thority for censure or removal of a judge. Such a pro-ceeding would be heard by the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and the six judges senior in service, excluding the Court of Appeals judge who by law serves as the Chairman of the Judicial Standards Com-mission. This procedure for the censure or removal of a justice of the Supreme Court became effective as of 30 April 1979. (1979 Session Laws, c. 486). In addition to a recommendation of censure or re-moval, the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary measure known as a reprimand. The reprimand is a mechanism administratively developed for dealing with inquiries where the conduct involved does not warrant censure or removal, but where some action is justified. Since the establishment of the Judicial Standards Com-mission in 1973, reprimands have been issued in nine inquiries. During the 1 July 1978 - 30 June 1979 fiscal year, the Judicial Standards Commission met on the following dates: 25 August 1978, 27 October 1978, 26 January 1979, 23 March 1979, and 29 June 1979. A complaint or other information against a judge, whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the Commission acting on its own motion, is designated as an "Inquiry Concerning a Judge." Three such inquiries were pending as of 1 July 1978, and 65 inquiries were filed during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a total workload of 68 inquiries. During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 66 inquiries and two inquiries remained pending at the end of the fiscal year. The determinations of the Com-mission with regard to the 66 inquiries disposed of dur-ing the fiscal year were as follows: (1) 45 inquiries were determined to involve subject matter not within the Commission's jurisdiction; (2) 10 inquiries were determined to involve subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not warranting further proceedings; (3) four inquiries were determined to warrant no further action following receipt of additional in-formation requested in order to clarify the nature of the inquiry; (4) five inquiries were determined to warrant no further action following completion of prelimi-nary investigations; and (5) two inquiries were determined to warrant the is-suance of a reprimand. The Supreme Court of North Carolina issued opin-ions during the 1 July 1978 - 30 June 1979 period relat-ing to recommendations by the Judicial Standards Commission filed prior to 1 July 1978. In In re Martin, 295 N.C. 291 (1978), the Court declined to follow the recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission for removal and instead imposed a censure of the re-spondent judge. It did, however, concur with and ap-prove the Commission's recommendation for removal in In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109 (1978), thereby removing the respondent judge from office, disqualifying him from holding further judicial office, and making him ineligible to receive retirement benefits. 45 PART III COURT RESOURCES Financial Personnel ^m s^K^S JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES Under the State Constitution the operating expenses of the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts) "other than compensation to process servers and other locally paid non-judicial officers" are required to be paid from State funds. It is customary legislative prac-tice for the General Assembly to include appropria-tions for the operating expenses of all three branches of State government in a single budget bill, for a two-year period ending on June 30 of the odd-numbered years. In recent years, the General Assembly has customarily held a "short" session in even-numbered years and the budget for the second year of the biennium is generally modified during these short sessions. Building facilities for the appellate courts are provid-ed by State funds, but by statute the county govern-ments are required to provide from county funds for adequate facilites for the trial courts within each of the 100 counties. State appropriations for the operating expenses of the Judicial Department for fiscal year July 1, 1978 through June 30, 1979 totalled $63,685,178. These were appropriations from the State's general fund. General Fund appropriations for the operating expenses of all State agencies and departments, including the Judicial Department, totalled $2,452,011,095 for fiscal year, 1978-79. (These do not include appropriations for capi-tal construction or appropriations from the Highway Fund for highway construction and repair.) As is illustrated in the chart below, General Fund appropriations for the operating expenses of the Judi-cial Department comprised 2.6% of the General Fund appropriations for the operating expenses of all State agencies and departments. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION $63,685,178 47 JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES Appropriations from the State's general fund for operating expenses of the Judicial Department over the past five fiscal years are shown in the table below and in the graph at the top of the following page. For com-parative purposes, appropriations from the general fund for operating expenses of all State agencies and departments (including the Judicial Department) for the last five fiscal years are also shown in the table below and in the second graph on the following page. APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES Judicial Department All State Agencies Fiscal Year 1974- 1975 1975- 1976 1976- 1977 1977- 1978 1978- 1979 % Increase over % Increase over Appropriation previous year Appropriation previous year $39,970,067 $1,692,373,585 42,908,242 7.35% 1,737,659,496 2.68% 47,218,782 10.05% 1,962,976,606 12.97% 56,319,115 19.27% 2,193,405,714 11.74% 63,685,178 13.08% 2,452,011,095 11.79% REASE, 1974- 1979 12.44% 9.80% During the past decade, including the five-year peri-od covered by the above table, inflation has been a sig-nificant factor in the national economy. For example, during 1978-79, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the average person spent $205.20 to pay for goods and services which could have been obtained for $100.00 in 1967. Therefore, if these appropriations are stated in 1967 dollars, the average annual increase in Judicial Department appropriations for the past five years would be 4.0% instead of 12.44% as reflected in the table above. The greatest percentage increase in Judicial Depart-ment appropriations during this period was for the 1977-78 fiscal year. The increase for that year was due in large measure to a significant increase in the number of superior court judges (20%) and an increase in the number of assistant district attorneys (18%) for that year. 4S GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, 1974-75 — 1978-79 $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $63,685,178 1978- 1979 GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES OF ALL STATE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS, 1974-75 — 1978-79 S2 $2 $2 SI SI 500,000,000 250,000,000 000,000,000 ,750,000,000 ,500,000,000 ,250,000,000 ,000,000,000 750,000,000 500,000,000 250,000,000 $2,452,011,095, 1974- 1975 1975- 1976 1976- 1977 1977- 1978 1978- 1979 49 JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES July 1, 1978 - June 30, 1979 General Fund expenditures, rounded to the nearest dollar, for operating expenses of the Judicial Depart-ment during the 1978-79 fiscal year totalled $62,245,923, divided among the major budget classifi-cations as shown below. Expenditures for LEAA-funded projects in the Judicial Department totalled $2,584,907, for a grand total of $64,830,830 in Judicial Department expenditures. Supreme Court Court of Appeals Superior Courts (This classification includes judges, district attorneys, assistant district attorneys, court reporters, and staff personnel.) District Courts (This classification includesjudges, magistrates, and court reporters.) Clerks of Superior Court (This classification includes all 100 clerks and their staffs, juror fees, witness fees, and such support services as supplies, postage, telephone expenses, and office equipment for all local Judicial Department personnel.) Juvenile Probation and Aftercare Legal Representation for Indigents Assigned private counsel ($4,568,495) Public defenders ($1,149,780) Special counsel at mental hospitals ($162,354) Support services (transcripts, records, briefs) ($243,659) Administrative Office of the Courts Judicial Council Judicial Standards Commission Total General Fund Expenditures LEAA-Funded Projects GRAND TOTAL The distribution of General Fund expenditures among the major budget categories is illustrated in the chart on the following page. %of Amount Total 1,173,674 1.9% 1,485,877 2.4% 12,377,669 19.9% 12,745,520 20.5% 21,457,921 34.5% 5,515,169 6,124,288 1,361,382 1,921 2,502 62,245,923 2,584,907 64,830,830 8.9S 9.8'- 2.1% 100.0% 50 JU
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
|(1945-1989) Post War/Cold War period
|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
|10432 KB; 188 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
/C/ : /97l/7?
|OCLC Number-Original