text:
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
X 13 101: m/to C. I North Carolina State Library. Raleigh SNortlj Carolina Courts 1979-80 APR 6 '981 Annual Report of tl|0 JV&mmistrattue <K)fftce of ttje Courts The Cover: The Madison County Courthouse, in Marshall, North Carolina, was completed in 1907. It is a two-story Neo-Classical Revival brick structure, a style which significantly influenced courthouse design in North Carolina from the 1890\s to the 1930Y NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 1979-80 ANNUAL REPORT of the ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS JUSTICE BUILDING RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA To The Honorable, The ChiefJustice of The Supreme Court of North Carolina In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes I hereby transmit the Four-teenth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1, 1979 - June 30, 1980. Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, and present process required to produce this annual report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, principal responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Systems Division. Among court officials, the principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of the clerks of superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of the State. Without the daily, responsible work of clerk personnel across the State, this report would not have been possible. Bert M. Montague Director January, 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS Parti The 1979-80 Judicial Year In Review The 1979-80 Judicial Year In Review Part II Court System Organization and Operations Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 7 The Present Court System 11 Organization and Operations in 1979-80 The Supreme Court 15 The Court of Appeals 21 The Superior Courts 29 The District Courts 33 District Attorneys 36 Clerks of Superior Court 39 Public Defenders 41 Administrative Office of the Courts 42 The Judicial Planning Committee 47 The N.C. Courts Commission 49 The Judicial Standards Commission 50 Part III Court Resources Judicial Department Finances Appropriations 53 Expenditures 56 Receipts 58 Distribution of Receipts 59 Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 63 Judicial Department Personnel 69 Part IV Courts Caseload Data Superior Court Division Caseload Data 77 District Court Division Caseload Data 117 Tables, Charts and Graphs Part II Court System Organization and Operations Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the Present Court System 10 Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts 13 The Supreme Court of North Carolina 14 Supreme Court, Caseload Inventory, 1979-80 16 Supreme Court, Cases Filed, 1979-80 16 Supreme Court, Manner of Disposition of Cases, 1979-80 16 Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Opinions Rendered, 1979-80 17 Supreme Court, Petitions Filed, 1979-80 18 Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed, 1979-80 19 The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 20 Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1979 22 Court of Appeals, Inventory of Cases Appealed, 1979 24 Court of Appeals, Inventory of Petitions and Motions, 1979 , 25 Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 26 Judges of Superior Court 27 District Court Judges 31 District Attorneys 35 Clerks of Superior Court 38 Organization of the Administrative Office of the Courts 42 The Judicial Planning Committee 47 The N.C. Courts Commission 49 The Judicial Standards Commission 50 PART III Court Resources General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies and Judicial Department, 1979-80 53 General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies and Judicial Department, 1975-80 54 General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of all State Agencies and Judicial Department, 1975-80 55 General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations, 1979-80 56 Judicial Department Receipts, 1975-80 58 Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures collected by the Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 60 Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 63 Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 64 Assigned Counsel, Cases and Expenditures 65 Judicial Department Personnel 69 Part IV Courts Caseload Data Superior Courts, Caseload, 1979-80 78 Superior Courts, Caseload Trends, 1970-1980 79 Superior Courts, Civil Cases Trends, 1970-1980 80 Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 81 Superior Courts, Civil Cases Inventory, 1979-1980 82 Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Methods of Disposition, 1979-1980 85 Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, 1979-1980 86 Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 89 Superior Courts, Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings, 1974-1980 94 Superior Courts, Inventory of Estates and Special Proceedings, 1979-1980 95 Superior Courts, Trends in Criminal Cases, 1970-1980 98 Superior Courts, Inventory of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 99 Superior Courts, Methods of Disposition of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 102 Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 103 Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 106 District Courts District Courts District Courts District Courts District Courts District Courts District Courts District Courts District Courts District Courts District Courts District Courts District Courts District Courts District Courts District Courts Filings and Dispositions, 1979-1980 118 Median Ages of Cases, 1979-1980 119 Caseload Trends, 1971-1980 120 Caseload Trends of Civil Cases, 1971-1980 121 Filings and Dispositions of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 122 Civil Caseload Inventory, 1979-1980 123 Methods of Disposition of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 126 Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 127 Ages of Civil Cases, 1979-1980 132 Offenses and Conditions in Juvenile Petitions, 1979-1980 137 Adjudicatory Hearings, Juvenile Petitions, 1979-1980 140 Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases, 1971-1980 143 Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory, 1979-1980 144 Criminal Cases, Methods of Disposition, 1979-1980 147 Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition, 1979-1980 148 Ages of Criminal Cases, 1979-1980 153 Rankings of Judicial Districts In Terms of Total Caseload Disposed Of, Superior Court and District Court Cases 161 Rankings of Counties In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of, Superior and District Court Cases 162 in Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1980nort PARTI THE 1979-1980 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW THE 1979-80 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW This Annual Report on the work of North Carolina's Judicial Department is for the fiscal year which began July 1, 1979 and ended June 30, 1980. The Workload of the Courts During 1979-80 there were some substantial increases in the workload of North Carolina's courts, at both the appellate and trial court levels. As set out in more detail in Part II of this Report, filings in the Supreme Court in-creased by 29% to 243 cases filed during the Court's fall 1979 and Spring 1980 terms, compared with 188 cases during the Fall 1978 and Spring 1979 terms. There was a substantial increase in the number of opinions filed by the Court: from 162 rendered in 1978-79 to 193 in 1979- 80, an increase of 19%. Petitions docketed in the Court rose 23.6% (from 499 in 1978-79 to 617 in 1979-80), and there was a 10.8% increase in the number of petitions allowed by the Court (65 in 1978-79, 72 in 1979-80). In the Court of Appeals, filings in calendar year 1979 rose to 1,204 cases, an increase of 2.5% over 1978 filings of 1,174 cases. There was a corresponding rise in case dispositions: from 1,133 cases disposed in 1978 to 1,190 in 1979, an increase of 5.0%. Petitions filed in the Court rose from 351 in 1978 to 532 in 1979, a 52% increase. (Petitions as counted here are largely comprised of re-quests for extraordinary remedies. Data is reported from the Court of Appeals on a calendar year rather than a fiscal year basis.) More detailed data on the appellate courts is included in Part II.) In the superior courts, filings of both civil and crimi-nal cases increased by 9.1% to a total of 74,899 cases filed in 1979-80 (compared with 68,625 cases filed in 1978-79). Superior court case dispositions also rose, to a total of 72,983 civil and criminal cases disposed of in 1979-80 — 10.7% higher than the 1978-79 total of 65,9 1 1 cases disposed of. But though dispositions increased at a slightly faster rate than filings, there were more cases filed in superior courts in 1979-80 than were disposed of, and the number of cases pending at the beginning of the year (31,356) rose six percent to a total of 33,272 cases pending in the superior courts by the end of the year. Operations of the superior courts are summarized in Part II of this Report; detailed data on the caseloads in the 100 counties and 33 judicial districts are presented in Part IV. The increase in cases filed in North Carolina's district courts was a small one in 1979-80. Total filings of civil and criminal cases rose from 1,432,067 in 1978-79 to 1,458,647 in 1979-80, an increase of less than two per-cent. Dispositions also rose, although at a slower rate: from 1,402,518 in 1978-79 to 1,415,924 in 1979-80, an in-crease of just under one percent. The net result was a substantial increase in the number of civil and criminal cases pending in the district courts. Total cases pending rose from 200,316 pending on July 1, 1979 to 243,039 pending on June 30, 1980; this represents an increase of 21.% The small increase in the combined (civil and crimi-nal) total of district court case filings results from two conflicting trends. Filings of district court civil cases continued to rise sharply: the 1979-80 total (315,867 cases) is thirteen percent above the previous year's (279,548), which was in turn about six percent higher than the total for 1978. Filings of district court civil cases have more than doubled since 1972. On the other hand, filings of district court criminal cases decreased for the second year in a row. Again filings of traffic cases were lower in 1979-80 than they were in 1978-79: the to-tal dropped from 796,227 cases filed in 1978-79 to 777,264 filed in 1979-80. This decrease more than offset a small increase in the numbers of other district court criminal cases filed. Whether the numbers of traffic cases brought to North Carolina's courts will continue to decline in the future is, of course, difficult to say. The reduced num-bers in the past two reporting periods are probably related to changes in automobile owners' driving habits - changes which are also reflected in recently reported decreases in State gasoline tax revenues. It seems likely that higher gasoline prices are prompting private automobile owners to drive less than they would otherwise, and at lower speeds. The possible implications of these trends for the court system are potentially profound. Although it may ap-pear that the demand for judicial resources is not in-creasing at a very drastic rate because the sharp rise in civil case filings is numerically diminished by decreases in traffic case filings, more civil cases than criminal cases require a hearing or trial by a judge or magistrate. In 1979-80 almost six out of every ten traffic cases disposed of were disposed of by the defendant's waiver of ap-pearance and plea of guilty before a magistrate or clerk of superior court staff — a procedure which requires a minimum of time and effort. Most civil cases, on the other hand, go to trial before a magistrate (about 60% of the total disposed of in 1979-80) or a judge (an ad-ditional 21%) or both. In terms of the demand for the court system's resources, then, there is no easy equivalence between a decrease in traffic case filings and an increase in civil case filings or other criminal case filings. Legislative Highlights Expansion of Public Defender System The 1979 General Assembly in its second ("short") 1980 session voted to extend the State's public defender system — now operative in five districts — into the Third Judicial District effective January 1, 1981. Like four of the other five public defenders, the new public THE 1979-80 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW defender will be appointed by the Governor from a list of nominees drawn up by members of the district bar, and he or she will serve a four-year term. Presumptive Sentencing Law The "Fair Sentencing Act" of the 1979 General As-sembly (passed in the first, 1979, session) was amended in the second, 1980, session. In addition to some clarify-ing amendments relating to the effect on an offender's sentence of previous felony convictions, the effective date of the Act was changed from July 1, 1980 to March 1, 1981. Speedy Trial Law Present North Carolina law provides that trial of a criminal case must begin within 120 days of the filing of the case, with certain periods of excusable or justifiable delay excluded by the statute. The 120-day limit was to have been reduced to 90 days as of October 1, 1980 un-der the law as originally enacted by the 1977 General Assembly. In the 1980 session, the imposition of the 90- day limit was changed to an effective date of October 1, 1981; until that date, the present 120-day limit will remain in effect. Misdemeanor Appeals A defendant convicted of a misdemeanor in North Carolina's district courts (where no trial by jury is available in criminal matters) has the right to appeal the judgment to the superior court for trial de novo. Previously existing law specifies that the superior court obtains the same jurisdiction over the appealing defen-dant that the district court had. Amendment to these statutes in the 1980 legislative session provides that when the conviction in district court resulted from a plea arrangement between the defendant and the State, one effect of which was the dismissal, reduction or modifica-tion of the original misdemeanor charges, the superior court has jurisdiction "to try those charges in the form and to the extent that they subsisted in the district court immediately prior to entry of the defendant and the State of the Plea arrangement." Court Studies The General Assembly established in its 1980 session a Juvenile Law Study Commission to make continuing studies of statutory and case law relating to juveniles, of services available to juveniles and their families, and of any other matter the Commission considers "of impor-tance to state consideration of juveniles." There are to be fifteen members of the Commission, eleven to be ap-pointed by the Governor and two each to be appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Of the eleven gubernatorial appointees, two must be district court judges and three must be court counselors. (Court counselors are Judicial Department employees who provide intake/screening functions and probation and parole supervision for the juveniles within the jurisdiction of the district courts.) Reports from the Commission are to be submitted by the first date of each full legislative session. The 1980 legislative session directed the North Caro-lina Courts Commission to consider the salaries now paid to assistant district attorneys, to develop recom-mendations for a salary schedule for these personnel, and to report to the 1981 General Assembly on this top-ic by March 1, 1981. The General Assembly also in-cluded in Chapter 1221 of its Session Laws a statement of its "understanding" that the Courts Commission is authorized to "make continuing studies of the structure, organization, jurisdiction, procedures and personnel, in-cluding the office of the public defender, of the Judicial Department . . ." The listed study-topics, with the ex-ception of the explicit reference to public defenders, were included in the statutes which re-established the Courts Commission in 1979 (G.S. 7A-506, et seq.). The General Assembly in 1980 also directed the Ad-ministrative Office of the Courts to study the implemen-tation of the statute (G.S. 7A-289.32) which permits ter-mination of parental rights if a parent is mentally re-tarded or mentally ill and cannot provide care for his or her child. The report is due to the 1981 General Assembly by May 1, 1981, with a supplemental report due by May 1, 1982. Appropriations Modifications of the two-year budget for 1979-81 provided additional appropriations for: - increased costs for representation of indigents; - additional magistrate positions authorized in Mecklenburg and Stokes Counties; - additional assistant district attorney positions authorized in Districts 7, 13 and 16; - additional secretarial positions in the district at-torneys' offices in Districts 3 and 7; - additional deputy clerk of court positions in 17 different counties; - reimbursement for superior court judges' travel costs (previously covered by the judges' annual subsistence allowance); and - a 10% pay increase for Judicial Department per-sonnel — comparable to the pay increase provided other State employees. THE 1979-80 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW Remaining Parts of Annual Report More detailed information on the work of the Judicial Department in the 1979-80 fiscal year is included in the remaining three parts of this Report. Part II contains a brief history of the court system and a description of the present system, with each of the several components described and summary information provided on opera-tions in 1979-80. Information on the Judicial Department's financial and personnel resources is set out in Part III of this Annual Report. Included is: information on appropria-tions from the General Fund for operating expenses in 1979-80, compared with appropriations in previous years and appropriations trends for the operating ex-penses of all State government departments and agen-cies; information on expenditures in the several budget categories, with comparative information on previous years' expeditures; information on Judicial Department revenues from its several sources, and the distribution of those revenues; a section on the costs of the indigent representation program, including a county-by-county table on numbers of cases and payments for assigned private counsel for indigents; and a table showing the Judicial Department personnel categories and salary ranges for the 1979-80 fiscal year. The great volume of data on the flow of cases through the two trial court divisions — with data broken down into several cases categories and presented for each of the 100 counties — is presented in Part IV. PART II COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS • Historical Development of Court System • Present Court System • Organization and Operations in 1979-80 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM From its early colonial period North Carolina's judi-cial system has been the focus of periodic attention and adjustment. Through the years, there has been a repeat-ed sequence of critical examination, proposals for re-form, and finally the enactment of some reform measures. Colonial Period Around 1700 the royal governor established a Gener-al (or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute developed over the appointment of associate justices. The Assembly conceded to the King the right to name the chief justice but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the power to appoint the associate justices. Other con-troversies developed concerning the creation and juris-diction of the courts and the tenure of judges. As for the latter, the Assembly's position was that judge ap-pointments should be for good behavior as against the royal governor's decision for life appointment. State historians have noted that "the Assembly won its fight to establish courts and the judicial structure in the province was grounded on laws enacted by the legisla-ture," which was more familiar with local conditions and needs (Lefler and Newsome, 142). Nevertheless, North Carolina alternated between periods under legis-latively enacted reforms (like good behavior tenure and the Court Bill of 1746, which contained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary court system) and periods of stale-mate and anarchy after such enactments were nullified by royal authority. A more elaborate system was framed by legislation in 1767 to last five years. It was not renewed because of persisting disagreement be-tween local and royal partisans. As a result, North Carolina was without higher courts until after Indepen-dence (Battle, 847). At the lower court level during the colonial period, judicial and county government administrative func-tions were combined in the authority of the justices of the peace, who were appointed by the royal governor. After the Revolution When North Carolina became a state in 1776, the colonial structure of the court system was retained largely intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Ses-sions — the county court which continued in use from about 1670 to 1868 — were still held by the assembled justices of the peace in each county. The justices were appointed by the governor on the recommendation of the General Assembly, and they were paid out of fees charged litigants. On the lowest level of the judicial sys-tem, magistrate courts of limited jurisdiction were held by justices of the peace, singly or in pairs, while the county court was out of term. The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the Gener-al Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of Law and Equity. A court law enacted a year later au-thorized three superior court judges and created judi-cial districts. Sessions were supposed to be held in the court towns of each district twice a year, under a sys-tem much like the one that had expired in 1772. Just as there had been little distinction in terminology between General Court and Supreme Court prior to the Revolu-tion, the terms Supreme Court and Superior Court were also interchangeable during the period immediate-ly following the Revolution. One of the most vexing governmental problems con-fronting the new State of North Carolina was its judi-ciary. "From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary caused complaint and demands for reform." (Lefler and Newsome, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, con-flicting judge opinions, and insufficient number of judges, and lack of means for appeal were all cited as problems, although the greatest weakness was consid-ered to be the lack of a real Supreme Court. In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court or Con-ference to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the districts. This court was continued and made perma-nent by subsequent laws. The justices were required to put their opinions in writing to be delivered orally in court. The Court of Conference was changed in name to the Supreme Court in 1805 and authorized to hear appeals in 1810. Because of the influence of the English legal system, however, there was still no conception of an alternative to judges sitting together to hear appeals from cases which they had themselves heard in the dis-tricts in panels of as few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 1818, though, an independent three-judge Supreme Court was created for review of cases decided at the Superior Court level. Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in each county were made mandatory in 1806, and the State was divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the six judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constitut-ing a quorum as before. The County court of justices of the peace continued during this period as the lowest court and as the agency of local government. After the Civil War Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it more democratic were made in 1868. A primary holdover from the English legal arrangement - the distinction between law and equity proceedings — was abolished. The County Court's control of local govern-ment was abolished. Capital offenses were limited to murder, arson, burglary and rape, and the Constitution stated that the aim of punishment was "not only to sat-isfy justice, but also to reform the offender, and thus prevent crime." The membership of the Supreme Court was raised to five, and the selection of the justices (in- HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM eluding the designation of the chief justice) and super-ior court judges (raised in number to 12) was taken from the legislature and given to the voters, although vacancies were to be filled by the governor until the next election. The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the County Court of which three justices of the peace constituted a quorum — was eliminated. Its judi-cial responsibilities were divided between the Superior Courts and the individual justices of the peace, who were retained as separate judicial officers with limited jurisdiction. Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 Constitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme Court justices to three and the Superior Court judges to nine. The General Assembly was given the power to appoint justices of the peace, instead of the governor. Most of the modernizing changes in the post-Civil War Constitution, however, were left, and the judicial struc-ture it had established continued without systematic modification through more than half of the 20th cen-tury. (A further constitutional amendment approved by the voters in November, 1888, returned the Supreme Court membership to five, and the number of superior court judges to twelve.) Before Reorganization A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time systematic court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. This accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the court system was most evident at the lower, local court level, where hundreds of courts specially created by statute operated with widely dissimilar structure and jurisdiction. By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent major reforms was begun, the court system in North Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme Court, with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior court, with general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statu-tory courts of limited jurisdiction, and (d) justices of the peace and mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction. At the superior court level, the State had been divid-ed into 30 judicial districts and 24 solicitorial districts. The 40 superior court judges (who rotated among the counties) and the district solicitors were paid by the State. The clerk of superior court, who was judge of probate and often also a juvenile judge, was a county official. There were specialized branches of superior court in some counties for matters like domestic rela-tions and juvenile offenses. The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher of these local court levels were more than 180 recorder-type courts. Among these were the county recorder's courts, municipal recorder's courts and township re-corder's courts; the general county courts, county crim-inal courts and special county courts; the domestic relations courts and the juvenile courts. Some of these had been established individually by special legislative acts more than a half-century earlier. Others had been created by general law across the State since 1919. About half were county courts and half were city or township courts. Jurisdiction included misdemeanors (mostly traffic offenses), preliminary hearings and sometimes civil matters. The judges, who were usually part-time, were variously elected or appointed locally. At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had simi-lar criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties up to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the peace also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These court officials were compensated by the fees they exact-ed, and they provided their own facilities. Court Reorganization The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revi-sion of the court system received the attention and sup-port of Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who encouraged the leadership of the North Carolina Bar Association to pursue the matter. A Court Study Com-mittee was established as an agency of the North Caro-lina Bar Association, and that Committee issued its report, calling for reorganization, at the end of 1958. A legislative Constitutional Commission, which worked with the Court Study Committee, finished its report early the next year. Both groups called for the structur-ing of an all-inclusive court system which would be directly state-operated, uniform in its organization throughout the State and centralized in its administra-tion. The plan was for a simplified, streamlined and unified structure. A particularly important part of the proposal was the elimination of the local statutory courts and their replacement by a single District Court; the office of justice of the peace was to be abolished, and the newly fashioned position of magistrate would function within the District Court as a subordinate ju-dicial office. Constitutional amendments were introduced in the legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were reintroduced and approved at the 1961 session. The Constitutional amendments were approved by popular vote in 1962, and three years later the General Assem-bly enacted statutes to put the system into effect by stages. By the end of 1970 all of the counties and their courts had been incorporated into the new system, whose unitary nature was symbolized by the name, General Court of Justice. The designation of the entire 20th Century judicial system as a single, statewide "court," with components for various types and levels of caseload, was adapted from North Carolina's earlier HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM General Court, whose full venue extended to all of the 17th Century counties. After Reorganization Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has contin-ued. In 1965, the Constitution was amended to provide for the creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It was amended again in 1972 to allow for the Supreme Court to censure or remove judges upon the recom-mendation of a Judicial Standards Commission. As for the selection of judges, persistent efforts have been made in the 1970's to obtain legislative approval of amendments to the State Constitution, to appoint judges according to "merit" instead of electing them by popular, partisan vote. The proposed amendments have received the backing of a majority of the members of each house, but not the three-fifths required to sub-mit constitutional amendments to a vote of the people. It seems likely that this significant issue will be before the General Assembly again for consideration. Major Sources Battle, Kemp. P. An Address on the History of the Supreme Court (Delivered in 1888). I North Carolina Reports 835-876. Hinsdale, C.E. County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition. Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome. North Carolina: The History of a Southern State. 1963 Edition. Sanders, John L. Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of Government. Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold. North Carolina Courts of Law and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular 1973. THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal , , Recommendations from Judicial ^- Standards Commission! Original Jurisdiction All felony cases; civil cases in excess of $5,000 , , Decisions of most administrative agencies COURT OF APPEALS 12 Judges SUPERIOR COURTS 66 Judges Original Jurisdiction Probate and estates, special proceedings (condemnations, adoptions, partitions, foreclosures, etc.) civil cases criminal cases (lor trial de novo) DISTRICT COURTS 136 Judges Clerks of Superior Court (100) Magistrates (598) s^-. i Decisions of Utilities 'c/. Commission, Industrial Commission, State Bar, . Property Tax Commi Commissioner of Inssturance i Original Jurisdiction Misdemeanor cases not assigned to magistrates; probable cause hearings; civil cases $5,000 or less; juvenile proceedings; domestic relations; involuntary commitments Original Jurisdiction Accept certain misdemeanor guilty pleas; worthless check misdemeanors $500 or less; small claims $800 or less (1) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving con-stitutional questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may re-view Court of Appeals decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. (2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. (3) As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in criminal cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to death or life imprisonment, and in civil cases involving the involuntary annexation of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or more population. In all other cases appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the trial courts in cases where delay would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full. 10 THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab-lishes the General Court of Justice which "shall consti-tute a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdic-tion, operation, and administration, and shall consist of an Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a District Court Division.'" The Appellate Division is comprised of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The Superior Court Division is comprised of the su-perior courts which hold sessions in the county seats of the 100 counties of the State. The counties are grouped into judicial districts (33 at the present time), and one or more superior court judges are elected for each of the judicial districts. A clerk of the superior court for each county is elected by the voters of the county. The District Court Division is comprised of the dis-trict courts. The General Assembly is authorized to divide the State into a convenient number of local court districts and prescribe where the district courts shall sit, but district court must sit in at least one place in each county. The General Assembly has provided that districts for purposes of the district court are co-terminous with superior court judicial districts. The Constitution also provides for one or more magistrates to be appointed in each county "who shall be officers of the district court. " The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains the term, "judicial department," stating that "The General Assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the government, nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other than as permitted by this Article." The terms, "General Court of Justice" and "Judicial De-partment" are almost, but not quue, synonymous. It may be said that the Judicial Department encompasses all of the levels of court designated as the General Court of Justice plus all administrative and ancillary services within the Judicial Department. The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal be-tween the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of courts are illustrated in the chart on the op-posite page. Criminal Cases Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original ju-risdiction of the district courts. Some misdemeanor of-fenses are tried by magistrates, who are also empow-ered to accept pleas of guilty to certain offenses and impose fines in accordance with a schedule set by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges. Most trials of misdemeanors are by district court judges, who also hold preliminary, "probable cause" hearings in felony cases. Trial of felony cases is within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the dis-trict court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by jury available at the district court level; appeal from the district courts' judgments in criminal cases is to the su-perior courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in life-imprisonment or death sentence cases (which are appealed to the Supreme Court), appeal from the su-perior courts is to the Court of Appeals. Civil Cases The 100 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges of probate and have original jurisdiction in probate and estates matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction over such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, condemnations under the authority of eminent domain, and foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the superior court. The district courts have original jurisdiction in juve-nile proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for involuntary commitment to a mental hospital, and gen-eral civil cases where the amount in litigation is $5,000 or less. If the amount in litigation is $800* or less and the plantiff in the case so requests, the chief district court judge may assign the case for initial hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates' decisions may be appealed to the district court. Trial by jury for civil cases is avail-able in the district courts; appeal from the judgment of a district court in a civil case is to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of general civil cases where the amount of litigation is more than $5,000. Appeals from decisions of most ad-ministrative agencies is first within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in civil cases is to the Court of Appeals. Administration The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of the other courts of the General Court of Justice" (G.S. 7A-32(b)). In addition to this grant of general supervisory power, the North Carolina General Statutes provide certain Judicial Department officials with specific powers and responsibilities for the operation of the court system. The Supreme Court has the responsibility for prescribing rules of practice and procedures for the appellate courts and for prescribing rules for the trial courts to supplement those prescribed by statute. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court designates one of the judges of the Court of Appeals to be its Chief Judge, who in turn is responsible for scheduling the ses-sions of the Court of Appeals. * Increased from $500 effective October 1 , 1979 (G.S. 7A-2 10). 11 THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM The chart on the following page illustrates specific responsibilities for administration of the trial courts vested in Judicial Department officials by statute. The Chief Justice appoints the Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts; this Assistant Director also serves as the Chief Justice's administrative assistant. The schedule of sessions of su-perior court in the 100 counties is set by the Supreme Court; assignment of the State's rotating superior court judges is the responsibility of the Chief Justice. Finally, the Chief Justice designates a chief district court judge for each of the State's 33 judicial districts from among the elected district court judges of the respective dis-tricts. These judges have special responsibilities for the scheduling of the district courts and magistrates' courts within their respective districts, as well as general local-level administrative responsibilities. The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsi-ble for direction of the non-judicial, administrative and business affairs of the Judicial Department. Included among its functions are fiscal management, personnel direction, information and statistical services, supervi-sion of record keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, liaison with the legislative and executive departments of government, court facility evaluation, purchase and contract, education and training, coordination of the program for provision of legal counsel to indigent per-sons, juvenile probation and after-care, trial court ad-ministrator services, planning, and general administra-tive services. The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk for both the superior and district courts. Through 1979-80, the clerk also served as chairman of the county's calendar committee, which set the civil case calendars. Effective July 1, 1980, these committees have been eliminated; in the future, day-to-day calendaring of civil cases will be done by the clerk of superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in some districts, under the direct supervision of the senior resident supe-rior court judge and chief district court judge. The criminal case calendars in both superior and district courts are set by the district attorney of the respective district. 12 THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts CHIEF JUSTICE and SUPREME COURT I 2 i (33) Senior Resident Judges; (100) Clerks of Superior Court SUPERIOR COURTS Administrative Office of the Courts ± (33) District Attorneys X (33) Chief District Court Judges DISTRICT COURTS 1 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other trial courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court judges, who rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice. 2 The Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Chief Justice. 3 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other trial courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge in each of the 33 judicial districts from the judges elected in the respective districts. 4 The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the Judicial Department. 5 The district attorney sets the criminal-case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their re-spective courts. 6 In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the su-pervision of the chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees submitted by the clerk of superior court. 13 THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA1 ChiefJustice JOSEPH BRANCH Associate Justices J. FRANK HUSKINS J. WILLIAM COPELAND JAMES G.EXUM, JR. DAVID M.BRITT WALTER E. BROCK J. PHIL CARLTON Retired ChiefJustices WILLIAM H. BOBBITT SUSIE SHARP Retired Justices J. WILLPLESS,JR. CARLISLE W.HIGGINS 2 I. BEVERLY LAKE DANK. MOORE Clerk John R. Morgan Librarian Frances H. Hall 'As of 30 June 1980. 2 Deceased 9 October 980. 14 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Supreme Court At the apex of the General Court of Justice is the seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to consider and decide questions of law presented in civil and criminal cases appealed from the lower courts. The Chief Justice and six associate justices are elected to eight-year terms by popular vote. There are two terms of the Supreme Court each year: a Spring Term com-mencing on the first Tuesday in February and a Fall Term commencing on the first Tuesday in September. The Court sits only en banc. Jurisdiction The only original jurisdiction exercised by the Su-preme Court is over the censure and removal of judges upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judi-cial Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jur-isdiction includes: — cases on appeal by right from the Court of Ap-peals (Utilities Commission general rate-setting cases, cases involving substantial constitutional questions, and cases in which there has been dis-sent in the Court of Appeals); — criminal cases on appeal by right from the supe-rior courts (cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to death or life imprisonment); — civil cases on appeal by right from the superior courts (cases involving the involuntary annexa-tion of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or more population); and — cases in which review has been granted in the Su-preme Court's discretion. Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly from the trial courts may be granted when delay would likely cause substantial harm or when the workload of the Appellate Division is such that the expeditious ad-ministration of justice requires it. Most appeals are heard only after review by the Court of Appeals. Administration The Supreme Court has general power to supervise and control the proceedings of the other courts of the General Court of Justice. The Court has specific power to prescribe the rules of practice for the Appellate Divi-sion and supplementary rules of practice and procedure for the trial court divisions consistent with the rules prescribed by the General Assembly. The schedule of superior court sessions in the 100 counties is approved, yearly, by the Supreme Court. The members of the North Carolina Judicial Planning Committee are ap-pointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the Supreme Court, as are the Clerk of the Supreme Court, the Li-brarian of the Supreme Court, and the Appellate Divi-sion Reporter. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and an Assistant Director, who serve at his pleasure. He also designates a Chief Judge from among the judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief District Court Judge from among the judges in each of the State's 33 judicial districts. He assigns superior court judges, who regular-ly rotate from district to district, to the scheduled ses-sions of superior court in the 100 counties, and is also empowered to transfer district court judges to other districts for temporary or specialized duty. The Chief Justice (or another member of the Supreme Court des-ignated by him) is the chairman of the Judicial Council, and two superior court judges, one district court judge and two district attorneys are appointed to two-year terms on the Council by the Chief Justice. He also ap-points three of the seven members of the Judicial Standards Commission — a judge of the Court of Ap-peals who serves as the Commission's chairman, one superior court judge and one district court judge. Operations of the Court, 1979-80 Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 1979-80 fiscal year amounted to $1,185,967, an increase of one percent over total 1978-79 expenditures of $1,173,674. Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 1979-80 constituted 1.7% of all General Fund expendi-tures for the operation of the entire Judicial Depart-ment during the fiscal year. A total of 262 appealed cases were before the Su-preme Court during the Fall 1979 and Spring 1980 terms. A total of 193 cases were decided (with pub-lished opinions). The remainder were either withdrawn by the appellates, dismissed, or were still pending in the Court at the end of the Spring 1980 term. A detailed breakdown of this caseload is included in the tables on the following page. 15 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 Supreme Court Caseload Inventory* September 4, 1979 — September 2, 1980 Cases undecided and brought forward from Spring 1979 term Cases unheard and brought forward from Spring 1979 term Cases filed during Fall 1979 term Cases filed during Spring 1980 term Caseload for 1979-80 year Cases withdrawn or dismissed Cases decided during Fall 1979 term Cases decided during Spring 1980 term Cases carried forward to Fall 1980 term 6 13 123 120 262 19 84 109 24 * Beginning and end pending figures do not balance when cases filed and disposed of during the reporting period are taken into account. During the past several terms the Court underwent a period of experimentation and evaluation in its method of statistical reporting, including changes in the classification of cases. These classification changes, coupled with summary (one-time, cumulative) counting, appear to have in-troduced some double counting into the caseload inventory figures. Limited resources prevented a total case-by-case examination to isolate the error factor. On the other hand, the new classification and counting structure is designed to improve the long-term accuracy and comprehen-siveness of reported statistics, and future reporting periods should not encounter difficulty in reconciling beginning and end pending caseload figures. Cases Filed In The Supreme Court September 4, 1979 — September 2, 1980 CIVIL CASES Appeals as of right Dissent in the Court of Appeals Annexation by municipality of 5,000 or more population Requests to appeal granted Substantial constitutional question Petition for discretionary review of decision of Court of Appeals, allowed Petition for discretionary review prior to determination by Court of Appeals, allowed Petition for writ of certiorari, allowed Certified to U.S. Supreme Court CRIMINAL CASES Appeals as of right Defendant sentenced to life imprisonment Defendant sentenced to death Dissent in the Court of Appeals Requests to appeal granted Substantial constitutional question Petition for discretionary review of decision of Court of Appeals, allowed Petition for discretionary review prior to determination by Court of Appeals, allowed Petition for writ of certiorari, allowed Defendant sentenced to less than life imprisonment (transferred to Court of Appeals) 38 37 96 12 7 Manner Of Disposition Of Cases In The Supreme Court September 4, 1979 — September 2, 1980 Opinions rendered, civil 87 Opinions rendered, criminal 106 Total opinions rendered 193 Affirmed Reversed Reversed and remanded Remanded Granted/denied Dismissed/ withdrawn/settled 106 4^ 22 15 0/1 19 TOTAL 243 N U M B E R O F C A S E S ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 Appeals Docketed and Opinions Rendered in the Supreme Court 400 300 _ 200 100 _ H Appeals Docketed Opinions Rendered 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 The number of opinions written by the Supreme Court during the 1979-80 year shows a substantial increase over the number written in previous years. Of the 193 opi-nions written during the last year, 54.9% of these affir-med the decision of a lower court; 25.4% were reversals. 17 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Supreme Court The Supreme Court's workload also includes petitions quests to appeal. The total of 6 1 7 petitions docketed is an requesting discretionary review or certiorari and peti- increase of 24% over the total of 499 such petitions in the tions for issuance of other remedial writs. A total of 617 previous two terms (Fall 1978 and Spring 1979) and of such petitions were before the Court in the Fall 1979 and 81% over the Fall 1977 and Spring 1978 total of 341 Spring 1980 terms; the vast majority of these were re- petitions. Petitions Filed In The Supreme Court September 4, 1979 — September 2, 1980 Requests to Appeal CIVIL CASES Petitions for discretionary review of decision of Court of Appeals 282 Petitions for discretionary review prior to decision of Court of Appeals 1 3 Petitions for writ of certiorari 20 Applications for further review 49 Civil Case Total 364 CRIMINAL CASES Petitions for discretionary review of Court of Appeals 112 Petitions for discretionary review prior to decision of Court of Appeals 2 Petitions for writ of certiorari 118 Petitions for writ of habeas corpus 8 Criminal Case Total 240 Total Requests to Appeal 604 Petitions for Other Writs 13 TOTAL 617 Other motions considered 1 67 IX ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 N U M B E R O F C A S E S Petitions Docketed and Allowed In the Supreme Court 800 600 400 . 200 H Petitions Docketed Petitions Allowed 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 The number of petitions graphed here includes request to appeal cases as well as extraordinary writs. The 72 peti-tions allowed during the 1979-80 year included 60 for dis-cretionary review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, eight for discretionary review prior to a decision of the Court of Appeals, and four for certiorari. 19 THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA ChiefJudge NAOMI E. MORRIS Judges FRANK M.PARKER 1 R.A.HEDRICK EARL W.VAUGHN ROBERT M.MARTIN EDWARD B.CLARK GERALD ARNOLD JOHN WEBB RICHARD C.ERWIN HARRY C.MARTIN HUGH A. WELLS CECIL J. HILL Retired Judge HUGH B. CAMPBELL Clerk FRANCIS E. DAIL *Asof30June 1980. 'Retired 31 August 1980. Judge Willis P. Whichard was appointed to the Court effective September 2, 1980. 20 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Court of Appeals The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the appeals originating from the State's trial courts. The Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other locations in the State as authorized by the Supreme Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regu-lar or frequent. Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected by popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for the Court is designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the Chief Justice. Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the Chief Justice responsible for assigning members of the Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal num-ber of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge presides over the panel of which he or she is a member and designates a presiding judge for the other panels. The Chief Judge (or another member of the Court of Appeals designated by the Chief Judge) is an ex officio member of the Judicial Council. One member of the Court of Appeals, designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serves as chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission. Jurisdiction The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals consists of cases appealed from the trial courts. The Court also hears appeals directly from any final order or decision of the North Carolina Utilities Commis-sion, the Industrial Commission, and from certain final orders or decisions of the North Carolina State Bar and the Commissioner of Insurance. Effective Septem-ber 1, 1979, appeals from certain final orders or deci-sions of the Property Tax Commission go directly to the Court of Appeals. (Appeals from the decisions of other administrative agencies lie first within the juris-diction of the superior courts.) In the event of a recommendation from the Judicial Standards Commission to censure or remove from of-fice a justice of the Supreme Court, the (non-binding) recommendation would be considered by the Chief Judge and the six judges next senior in service on the Court of Appeals (excluding the judge who serves as the Commission's chairman). Such seven-member pan-el would have sole jurisdiction to act upon the Com-mission's recommendation. Expenses of the Court, 1979-80 Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during the 1979-80 fiscal year totalled $1,641,918, an increase of 10.5% over 1978-79 expenditures of $1,485,877. Ex-penditures for the Court of Appeals during 1979-80 amounted to 2.3% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. This percentage share of the total is virtual-ly identical to the Court of Appeals' percentage share of the Judicial Department total in the 1978-79 fiscal year. Case Data, Calendar Year 1979 A total of 1,204 appealed cases were before the Court of Appeals during calendar year 1979. A total of 1,190 cases were disposed during the same period. A detailed breakdown of this caseload is included in the tables on the following pages. The Court of Appeals' workload for 1979 also in-cluded 532 petitions of all types; of these, requests for extraordinary remedies (prerogative writs) make up the vast majority. The recent trend in filings and dispositions by the Court of Appeals is illustrated in the following graph. In reviewing the data, it should be noted that the number of judges on the Court was raised from nine to twelve by the 1977 General Assembly; the three judges appointed to these new positions took office in December of 1977 and January of 1978. 21 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 Filings and Dispositions in the Court of Appeals 1977-1979 3000 2500 . 2000 - 1500 _ 1000 500 . 1977 1978 1979 Filings and dispositions in the Court of Appeals, as graphed here, include appeal cases and petitions filed and disposed. The noticeable increase in filings and dis-positons in 1979 is explained almost entirely by an in-crease in the number of petitions filed and disposed. This increase does not necessarily indicate that more re-quests to appeal are entering the court, however, since the term "petitions" in this instance includes all peti-tions regardless of type. 22 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 Filings And Dispositions In The Court Of Appeals January 1 — December 31, 1979 Filings Dispositions Cases on appeal Civil cases appealed from District Courts Civil cases appealed from Superior Courts Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies Criminal cases appealed from Superior Courts TOTAL Petitions Allowed Remanded Denied Other TOTAL TOTAL CASES ON APPEAL AND PETITIONS Motions Allowed Remanded Denied TOTAL 223 439 47 495 1,204 1,190 54 6 400 1 532 461 1,736 1,651 818 3 207 1,183 1,028 23 INVENTORY OF CASES APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS January 1 — December 31, 1979 Cases Filed District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A/B* 16 17 18 19 A/B* 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A/B* 28 29 30 Total Appeals from District Courts 5 2 5 6 7 2 3 12 10 II 8 10 5 6 6 3 7 14 7 4 17 2 5 I 6 20 7 12 5 6 223 Appeals from Superior Courts Civil Criminal 19 10 9 12 II 16 4 64 II 7 4 15 18 4 6 20 16 IX 22 II 20 6 16 38 12 14 13 7 439 10 13 18 22 18 7 17 25 9 24 7 46 3 10 21 12 17 31 15 19 26 7 1 I 9 15 42 18 9 12 2 495 Other Total Cases Appeals Filed Disposed of 23 31 23 13 42 39 38 36 34 31 21 22 31 31 53 43 23 25 47 146 139 26 21 63 46 12 19 31 45 45 38 19 24 30 25 65 74 38 39 41 41 65 63 20 27 36 30 16 14 37 48 109 117 37 35 35 34 30 22 15 18 47 1,204 1,190 *Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown. Separate figures for these districts were not available. 24 INVENTORY OF PETITIONS AND MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS January 1 —- December 31, 1979 All Petitions Petitions Motions Other and Motions District Filed Allowed Denied Remanded Filed Allowed Denied Remanded Filed Disposed of 1 15 3 9 1 19 13 3 1 34 30 2 4 4 27 19 4 31 27 3 17 12 51 29 11 68 52 4 20 18 31 26 4 51 4X 5 26 2 18 1 39 24 8 65 53 6 13 12 1 32 25 7 45 45 7 17 16 35 27 4 52 47 8 18 2 15 9 24 15 5 42 38 9 12 2 8 31 23 5 43 38 10 63 11 40 148 108 22 211 181 II 4 2 2 29 15 8 33 27 12 29 3 24 (J 41 26 10 I 70 64 13 8 6 10 9 1 18 16 14 22 2 18 1 57 37 13 79 71 15 A/B* 9 2 5 4S 32 II 57 50 16 20 2 17 21 17 2 1 41 39 17 13 2 10 26 22 4 39 38 18 30 6 20 1 76 51 II 106 89 19 A/B* 17 3 10 1 22 14 5 39 33 20 27 2 24 23 14 6 50 46 21 18 2 14 57 40 12 75 68 22 14 1 11 17 13 2 31 27 23 5 5 32 27 2 37 34 24 9 1 7 22 15 6 31 29 25 14 13 44 30 9 58 52 26 50 1 37 107 67 16 1 157 122 27 A/B* 11 1 6 21 18 2 32 27 28 8 1 5 39 23 8 47 37 29 15 2 11 35 25 3 50 41 30 4 1 3 19 13 3 23 20 Totals 532 54 400 1,183 818 207 1,715 1,489 *Combined totals for Districts 15A and I5B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown. Separate figures for these districts were not available. 25 H >< H O u HZu /: Ead r- B -a B i/i 5 H •3 3 53 .5 "ou 8_ S « cs j>> C O X3 15 3 m 5 </) > 3 -o u U C IH i- 4-» r3 y^ 3 aa E« X) O •3 U i — Oil a -o o c ^^ 3 o Bj u l— i— U5 3 o '3 i— -5 -J 4-1 ^ E U c -o o u- J= l— <— t« "i as c u r3 Q -5 3 O u -o « Cfl m 3 m 3J 1) O Oil lx 'J o X) 3 c _g ' ' i _C u- 1— "O 3 _C 3 OJ O o O -o O 1c u > & -o -o c c o 3J -C us Q. 3 c o i— Cfl TD ed > o 00 3 c TD Oil U Oil f- u aj m H ftj -C m 71 26 JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT* (As of June 30, 1980) FIRST DIVISION District 1 2 3 J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City Elbert S. Peel, Jr., Williamston Robert D. Rouse, Jr., Farmville David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville James R. Strickland, Jacksonville Bradford Tillery, Wilmington Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids George M. Fountain, Tarboro Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro 8 R. Michael Bruce, Mount Olive James D. Llewellyn, Kinston SECOND DIVISION 9 Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg 10 James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh A. Pilston Goodwin, Jr., Raleigh Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh 1 1 Harry E. Canaday, Benson 12 E. Maurice Braswell, Fayetteville Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville D.B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville 13 Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 14 Thomas H. Lee, Durham Anthony M. Brannon, Bahama John C. Martin, Durham 15A D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington 15B F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill 16 Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton THIRD DIVISION District 17 James M. Long, Yanceyville 18 Charles T. Kivett, Greensboro W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro Edward K. Washington, Greensboro 19A Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer James C. Davis, Concord 19B Hal H. Walker, Asheboro 20 John D. McConnell, Southern Pines F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro 21 Harvey A. Lupton, Winston-Salem William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem 22 Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville Peter W. Hairston, Advance 23 Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilksboro FOURTH DIVISION 24 Ronald W. Howell, Marshall 25 Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory (Vacant) 1 26 Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte William T. Grist, Charlotte Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte 27A Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia 27B John R. Friday, Lincolnton 28 Robert D. Lewis, Asheville C. Walter Allen, Asheville 29 (Vacant)3 30 Lacy H. Thornburg, Webster * In districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed first. 1 Judge Sam J. Ervin, III, of Morganton, resigned this seat effective May 30, 1980; Claude S. Sitton, of Morganton, was appointed to suceed him effective September 3, 1980. 2 Judge J. W. Jackson, of Hendersonville, retired on June 1, 1980; Hollis M. Owens, Jr., of Rutherfordton, was appointed to succeed him effec-tive July 31, 1980. 27 SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone Clarence P. Cornelius, Mooresville Arthur L. Lane, Fayetteville Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem Harry L. Riddle, Jr., Morganton John R. Jolly, Rocky Mount Donald L. Smith, Raleigh EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT Albert W. Cowper, Kinston Hamilton H. Hobgood, Louisburg 28 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Superior Courts North Carolina's superior courts are principally original-jurisdiction trial courts which also perform some appellate functions. In 1979-80 there were 58 "resi-dent" superior court judges elected to office in the 33 judicial districts for eight-year terms by Statewide ballot, and eight "special" superior court judges ap-pointed to office by the Governor for four-year terms. Jurisdiction The superior court has original jurisdiction in all felony cases and in those misdemeanor cases which originate by grand jury indictment. (Most mis-demeanors are tried first in the district court, from which they may be appealed to the superior court for trial de novo by a jury. No trial by jury is available for criminal cases in district court.) The superior court is the proper court for trial of civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, and it has jurisdiction over appeals from all administrative agencies except the Utilities Commission, Industrial Commission, certain rulings of the Commissioner of Insurance, the Board of Bar Examiners of the N.C. State Bar, and the Property Tax Commission. Appeals from these agencies lie di-rectly to the Court of Appeals. Regardless of the amount in controversy, the original civil jurisdiction of the superior court does not include domestic relations cases, which are heard in the district courts, or probate and estates matter and certain special proceedings heard first by the clerk of superior court as ex officio judge of probate. Rulings of the clerk are within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. Administration The 100 counties of North Carolina are grouped into 33 judicial districts at the present time. Each district has at least one resident superior court judge who has cer-tain administrative responsibilities for his home district, such as providing for civil case-calendaring procedures. (Criminal case calendars are prepared by the district at-torneys.) In districts with more than one resident supe-rior court judge, the judge senior in service on the supe-rior court bench exercises these supervisory powers. The 33 judicial districts are grouped into four divi-sions for the rotation of superior court judges, as shown on the map on page 26. Within his division, a resident superior court judge is required to rotate through the judicial districts, holding court for at least six months in each, then moving on to his next assign-ment. A special superior court judge may be assigned to hold court in any of the 100 counties. Assignments of all superior court judges are made by the Chief Jus-tice of the Supreme Court. Under the Constitution of North Carolina, at least two sessions (a week each) of superior court are held annually in each of the 100 counties. The vast majority of counties have more than the Constitutional minimum of two weeks of superior court annually. Many larger counties have superior court in session about every week in the year. Resources A total of $14,042, 696 was expended for operation of the superior courts during the 1979-80 fiscal year, an in-crease of 13.5% over 1978-79 expenditures of $12,377,- 669. This total includes expenditures for the State's dis-trict attorneys' offices as well as the salaries and operating expenses of the 66 superior courts judges, court reporters in the superior courts, and staff support. The 1979-80 total amounted to 19.8% of the General Fund expenditures for operating expenses of the entire Judicial Department. This percentage share of the total is virtually identical to the superior courts' percentage share of the Judicial Department total in the previous year. 1979-80 Caseload Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 74,899 cases were filed in the superior courts from July 1, 1979 through June 30, 1980. Comparisons of this year's total with those in previous Annual Reports indi-cate that superior court case filings have been increasing in recent years. The 1979-80 total is 9.1% higher than the total of 68,625 cases filed during 1978-79. Superior court case dispositions increased also, al-though the number of cases disposed of in 1979-80 — a total of 72,983 civil and criminal cases — did not equal the number filed. As a result there was an increase in the number of cases pending, from 31,356 as of the first of the fiscal year to 33,272 as of the last of the year. This represents an increase of 6.1%. Additional, and more detailed, information on the flow of cases through the superior courts is included in Part IV of this report. 29 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Superior Courts Educational Activity Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Department sponsored the following educational activities for superior court judges in 1979-80: • three orientation sessions for new special superior court judges, July 27-28, August 3-4, and Septem-ber 7-8, in Chapel Hill, attended by 7 new judges; • the Fall Continuing Education Conference, Sep-tember 28-29, 1979 in Wilmington, attended by 50 judges; • the Spring Seminar, February 21-23, 1980 in Pinehurst, attended by 48 judges; and • the annual meeting of the Conference of Superior Court Judges, June 22-25 in Wrightsville Beach, at-tended by 58 judges. Grant Funds also were used to sponsor court reporter attendance at a North Carolina Shorthand Reporters Association seminar that was held in Fayetteville on February 16, 1980. A total of 30 superior court reporters attended this training session. The Conference of Superior Court Judges (Officers as of June 30, 1980) John D. McConnell, Southern Pines, President J.W. Jackson, Hendersonville, President-Elect Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer, Vice President F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill, Secretary-Treasurer Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro, and D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington, Additional Executive Committee Members 30 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* (As of June 30, 1980) District 1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City John R. Parker, Elizabeth City 2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington Charles H. Manning, Williamston 3 Charles H. Whedbee, Greenville E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City Norris C. Reed, Jr., New Bern James E. Regan, Oriental Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton 4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill E. Alex Erwin, III, Jacksonville Walter P. Henderson, Trenton James N. Martin, Kenansville Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville 5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington Carter T. Lambeth, Wilminton Charles H. Rice, III, Wilmington John M. Walker, Wilmington 6 Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck Robert E. Williford, Lewiston 7 George Britt, Tarboro James E. Ezzell, Rocky Mount Allen W. Harrell, Wilson Tom H. Matthews, Rocky Mount 8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro Joseph E. Setzer, Goldsboro Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro 9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford Ben U. Allen, Jr., Henderson J. Larry Senter, Franklinton Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford 10 George F. Bason, Raleigh Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh George R. Greene, Raleigh John Hill Parker, Raleigh Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh District 11 12 Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield William Christian, Sanford K. Edward Greene, Dunn W. Pope Lyon, Smithfield Derb S. Carter, Fayetteville Sol. G. Cherry, Fayetteville Joseph E. Dupree, Raeford Charles Lee Guy, Fayetteville Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville Frank T. Grady, Elizabethtown J. Wilton Hunt, Sr., Whiteville Roy D. Trest, Shallotte William E. Wood, Whiteville J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham Karen B. Galloway, Durham David Q. LaBarre, Durham William G. Pearson, II, Durham 15A J.B. Allen, Jr., Burlington Thomas D. Cooper, Jr., Burlington W.S. Harris, Jr., Graham 15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill Donald L. Paschal, Siler City 13 14 16 17 John S. Gardner, Lumberton B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg Charles G. McLean, Lumberton Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton Leonard H. vanNoppen, Danbury Foy Clark, Mount Airy Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville Robert L. Cecil, Hig Elreta M. Alexander Frank A. Campbell, John B. Hatfield, Jr. James Samuel Pfaff, Joseph A. Williams, John F. Yeattes, Jr., (Vacant) 1 h Point , Greensboro Greensboro , Greensboro Greensboro Greensboro Greensboro 19A Robert L. Warren, Concord L. Frank Faggart, Kannapolis Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. Judge B. Gordon Gentry, of Greensboro, retired on April 30, 1980; Joseph R. John, of Greensboro, was appointed to succeed him effective July 2, 1980. 31 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* (As of June 30, 1980) District 19B L.T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro William H. Heafner, Asheboro 20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle Kenneth W. Honneycutt, Monroe Walter M. Lampley, Rockingham 21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem Gary B. Tash, Winston-Salem 22 Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville Robert W. Johnson, Statesville Hubert E. Olive, Jr., Lexington 23 Ralph Davis, North Wilkesboro John T. Kilby, Jefferson Samuel T. Osborne, Wilkesboro 24 J. Ray Braswell, Newland Robert H. Lacey, Newland 25 Livingston Vernon, Morganton Edward J. Crotty, Hickory Bill J. Martin, Hickory L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton * The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. District 26 Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte Walter H. Bennett, Jr., Charlotte Larry Thomas Black, Charlotte L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte William G. Jones, Charlotte James E. Lanning, Charlotte William H. Scarborough, Charlotte T. Michael Todd, Charlotte 27A Lewis Bulwinkle, Gastonia Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia J. Ralph Phillips, Gastonia Donald E. Ramseur, Gastonia 27B A. Max Harris, Ellenboro James T. Bowen, Lincolnton George W. Hamrick, Shelby 28 James O. Israel, Jr., Candler Earl J. Fowler, Jr. Arden Peter L. Roda, Asheville William Marion Styles, Black Mountain 29 Robert C. Cash, Brevard Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton 30 Robert Leatherwood, III, Bryson City J. Charles McDarris, Waynesville John J Snow, Jr., Murphy 32 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The District Courts North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with original jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of the cases handled by the State's court system. There were 136 district court judges serving in 33 judicial districts during 1979-80, elected to four-year terms by the voters of their respective districts. A total of 598 magistrate positions (some part-time) were authorized in 1979-80. Magistrates are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominations submitted by the clerk of superior court of their county, and they are supervised by the chief district court judge of their district. Jurisdiction The jurisdiction of the district court extends to vir-tually all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in most felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary commitments and re-commitments to mental hospitals, domestic relations cases, and to general civil cases where the amount in controversy is $5,000 or less. Upon the plaintiff's request, a civil case where the amount in con-troversy is $800* or less may be denominated a "small claims" case and assigned by the chief district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magistrates are also empowered to try worthless check criminal cases when the value of the check does not exceed $400** and the offender has fewer than four previous worthless check convictions; magistrates may also accept waivers of ap-pearance and pleas of guilty in certain traffic cases. Magistrates conduct initial hearings to fix conditions of release for arrested offenders, and are empowered to issue arrest and search warrants. Administration A chief district judge is appointed for each judicial district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from among the elected judges in the respective districts. Sub-ject to the Chief Justice's general supervision, each chief judge exercises administrative supervision and authori-ty over the operation of the district courts and magistrates in his district. Each chief judge is responsi-ble for: scheduling sessions of district court and assign-ing judges; supervising the calendaring of civil cases; assigning matters to magistrates; making arrangements for court reporting and jury trials in civil cases; and supervising the discharge of clerical functions, in the dis-trict courts, of the clerks of superior court of the district. The 33 chief district court judges meet in conference at least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual conference adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses and fines for their violation for use by magistrates and clerks of court in accepting defendants' waivers of ap-pearance and guilty pleas. The Conference of Chief District Court Judges (Officers as of June 30, 1980) John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City, Chairman James O. Israel, Jr., Candler, Vice Chairman Resources A total of $14,269,622 was expended for operating ex-penses of the district courts in 1979-80, an increase of twelve percent over 1978-79 expenditures of $12,745,520. Included in the total are expenses of court reporters for district courts as well as personnel costs of district court judges and magistrates. The 1979-80 total is 20. 1% of the General Fund expenditures for operation of the entire Judicial Department. This is approximately equal to the district courts percentage share of the total Judicial Department expenditures for the previous fiscal year. 1979-80 Caseload Including most civil and all criminal cases, a total of 1,458,647 cases were filed in the district courts from July 1, 1979 through June 30, 1980. This total is 1.8% higher than 1978-79 filings of 1,432,067 cases. The relatively small increase in the combined (civil and criminal) figure results from a sharp increase in district court civil case filings (315,867 cases in 1979-80 -- 13.0% above the 1978-79 total of 279,548 cases) which is offset in part by a decline in filings of district court criminal cases (from 1,152,519 cases filed in 1978-79 to 1,142,780 in 1979-80). Total district court dispositions in 1979-80 (1,415,924 cases) lagged slightly behind the filings total, with the result that the number of cases pending rose over the course of the year. A total of 243,039 cases were pending on June 30, 1980. This is an increase of 21.3% over the number pending at the end of the previous year. More detailed information on district court civil and criminal caseloads is contained in Part IV of this Report. * Increased from $500, effective October 1, 1979. ** Increased from $300, effective October 1, 1979 33 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The District Courts Educational Activity Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Department sponsored the following educational activities for dis-trict court judges in 1979-80: • two orientation sessions for new judges, August 31- September 1 and September 21-22 at the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill, attended by 5 new judges; • a course on Juvenile Code revision and communi-ty- based alternatives,, September 14-15, 1979 in Chapel Hill, attended by 37 judges; • the district judges' Fall Seminar, November 2-3 in Asheville, attended by 97 judges; • two orientation sessions for new judges, November 30-December 1 and January 19 at the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill, attended by 6 new judges; and • the Summer Seminar of the Association of District Court Judges, June 22-25 in Southern Pines, at-tended by 77 judges. Grant funds were also used to sponsor court reporters attending the North Carolina Shorthand Reporters Association seminar that was held in Fayetteville on February , 1980. A total of 6 district court reporters at-tended this session. By statute, new magistrates are required to satisfac-torily complete a course of basic training of at least 40 hours within six months of taking office. Two sessions of this course were offered at the institute of Govern-ment in Chapel Hill in 1979-80. The first (July 23-27 and August 6-10) was attended by 34 new magistrates; the second (January 28-February 1 and February 4-8) was attended by 29 new magistrates. The Judicial Department also sponsored five refresh-er course sessions for magistrates, September 10-11 in Chapel Hill (107 magistrates), September 12-13 in Chapel Hill (65 magistrates), October 8-10 in Fontana Village (91 magistrates), October 15 in Charlotte (18 magistrates), and October 25-26 in Kinston (67 magistrates). The Association of District Court Judges (Officers as of June 30, 1980) George F. Bason, Raleigh, President Larry Thomas Black, Charlotte, Vice President Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton, Secretary- Treasurer George Britt, Tarboro, William G. Pearson, II, Durham, and Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton, Additional Executive Committee Members 34 DISTRICT ATTORNEYS (As of June 30, 1980) District 1 THOMAS S. WATTS, Elizabeth City 2 WILLIAM C. GRIFFIN, JR., Williamston 3 ELI BLOOM, Greenville 4 WILLIAM H.ANDREWS, Jacksonville 5 W.ALLEN COBB, Wilmington 6 W. H.S. BURGWYN, JR., Woodland 7 HOWARDS. BONEY, JR., Tarboro 8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro 9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford 10 J. RANDOLPH RILEY, Raleigh 11 JOHNW.TWISDALE,Smithfield 12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 13 LEEJ.GREER,Whiteville* 14 DAN K.EDWARDS, JR., Durham 15A HERBERT F.PIERCE, Graham 15B WADE BARBER, JR., Pittsboro 16 JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton District 17 FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR., Reidsville 18 MICHAEL A. SCHLOSSER, Greensboro 19A JAMES E.ROBERTS, Concord 19B RUSSELL G.WALKER, JR., Asheboro 20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe 21 DONALD K.TISDALE, Winston-Salem 22 H.W.ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington 23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro 24 CLYDE M. ROBERTS, Marshall 25 DONALD E.GREENE, Newton 26 PETER S.GILCHRIST, Charlotte 27A JOSEPH G. BROWN, Gastonia 27B W. HAMPTON CHILDS, JR., Lincolnton 28 RONALD C. BROWN, Asheville 29 M. LEONARD LOWE, Rutherfordton 30 MARCELLUS BUCHANAN, III, Sylva 35 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The District Attorneys The State is divided into prosecutorial districts which correspond to its judicial districts, and a district attor-ney is elected by the voters of each of the 33 districts for four-year terms. Duties The district attorney represents the State in all criminal actions brought in the superior and district courts in his district. In addition to his prosecutorial functions, the district attorney is responsible for calen-daring criminal cases for trial. Resources Each district attorney is authorized to employ, on a full-time basis, the number of assistant district attorneys specified by statute for his district. As of June 30, 1980, a total of 197 assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 33 districts. The district attorney of District 26 (Mecklenbury County) had the largest staff — 19 assis-tants - - and the district attorney of District 24 the smallest — two assistants. Each district attorney is also authorized to employ, on a full-time basis, an administrative assistant to assist in preparing cases for trial and to expedite the criminal court docket. The district attorney in 19 of the 33 dis-tricts is empowered to employ an investigative assistant, to aid in the investigation of cases preparatory to trial. 1979-80 Caseload A total of 61,824 criminal cases were filed in superior courts from July 1, 1979 through June 30, 1980; 36,830 of these cases were felonies and 24,994 were mis-demeanors on appeal from district courts. Combined with the 17,000 cases pending on July 1, 1979, the dis-trict attorneys' superior court caseload for the year totalled 78,824 cases. Of these, a total of 61,216 cases (36,169 felonies and 25,047 misdemeanor appeals) were disposed of, 77.7% of the caseload. Still pending in superior courts on June 30, 1980 were 17,608 cases (10,- 803 felonies and 6,805 misdemeanor appeals), which is an increase of 3.6% over the number pending on July 1, 1979.* In district courts, a total of 1,142,780 criminal cases were filed during 1979-80 (777,264 motor vehicle cases and 365,516 other criminal cases). The total is virtually identical to the 1978-79 total of 1,152,519 criminal cases filed, the result of a slight decrease in motor vehicle case filings that was nearly offset by an increase in other criminal case filings. A total of 121,645 criminal cases were pending as of July 1, 1979; this figure, combined with cases filed during the year, totalled 1,264,425 cases to be handled in district court. This cannot be regarded as the district attorneys' ''caseload," however, since many district court criminal cases are disposed of by defendant's waiver of appearance and plea of guilty before a magistrate or clerk of superior court staff, and these cases do not require the district attorneys' atten-tion. A total of 495,642 cases were disposed of by waiver in 1979-80 (44.6% of all district court criminal case dis-positions), and an additional 28,813 cases which were filed in 1979-80 were disposed of by waiver after June 30, 1980. When these are excluded, the district attor-ney's district court caseload for the year totalled 739,970 cases. Of these, 614,883 cases were disposed of, 83.1% of the caseload. This percentage is very slightly above the comparable figure (82.5%) for 1978-79. As of June 30, 1980, 153,900 criminal cases were pending in the district courts of the State, an increase of 26.5% over the num-ber pending on July 1, 1979.* Additional information on the criminal caseloads in the superior and districts courts is included in Part IV of this Report. As noted in Part I, specific figures on cases pending at the end of the fiscal year may have to be revised as additional information is received from the 100 clerks of superior court offices. 36 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The District Attorneys Educational Activity Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Department sponsored the following educational activities for dis-trict attorneys and their staffs in 1979-80: • a conference for administrative assistants, Septem-ber 19-21 at the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill, attended by 21 administrative assistants, four witness-attendance coordinators, and one in-vestigator; • the Fall Conference of the District Attorneys Association, September 27-29 in Raleigh, attended by 22 district attorneys and 82 assistant district at-torneys; an orientation session for new prosecutors, October 15-19 at the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill, attended by 30 new assistant district attorneys; the state-wide conference for juvenile court coun-selors and judges, November 4-5 in Asheville, was attended by six assistant district attorneys; a seminar on rape and sex offenses, March 18-21 in Chapel Hill, attended by four district attorneys and 46 assistant district attorneys; and the June Conference of the District Attorneys Association, June 22-25 in Southern Pines, atten-ded by 13 district attorneys and 72 assistant district attorneys. The District Attorneys Association (Officers as of June 30, 1980) Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City, President Joe Freeman Britt, Lumberton, Vice President Wade Barber, Jr., Pittsboro, Vice President, Legislative Affairs Ronald J. Bowers, Salisbury, Secretary-Treasurer 37 CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT (As of June 30, 1980) COUNTY Alamance Alexander Alleghany Anson Ashe Avery Beaufort Bertie Bladen Brunswick Buncombe Burke Cabarrus Caldwell Camden Carteret Caswell Catawba Chatham Cherokee Chowan Clay Cleveland Columbus Craven Cumberland Currituck Dare Davidson Davie Duplin Durham Edgecombe Forsyth Franklin Gaston Gates Graham Granville Greene Guilford Halifax Harnett Haywood Henderson Hertford Hoke Hyde Iredell Jackson CLERK OF COURT Louise B. Wilson Martha J. Adams Joan B. Atwood R. Frank Hightower Virginia W. Johnson Billy J. Vance Bessie J. Cherry Thomas S. Speight Smithy S. Harris K. Gregory Bellamy J. Ray Elingburg Major A. Joines Estus B. White Mary Hood Thompson Catherine W. McCoy Mary Austin J. P. Moore Eunice W. Mauney Janice Oldham Rose Mary Crooke Lena M. Leary Ralph A. Allison Ruth S. Dedmon Lacy R. Thompson Dorothy Pate George T. Griffin Wiley B. Elliot C. S. Meekins Hugh Shepherd Delores C. Jordan John A. Johnson James Leo Carr Curtis Weaver A. E. Blackburn Ralph S. Knott Betty B. Jenkins Tobe Daniels, Jr. O.W. Hooper, Jr. Mary Ruth C. Nelms Cleo W. McKeel Joseph E. Slate, Jr. J. C. Taylor Georgia Lee Brown William G. Henry Thomas H. Thompson Richard T. Vann Juanita Edmund W. Allen Credle Carl G. Smith Frank Watson, Jr. COUNTY Johnston Jones Lee Lenoir Lincoln Macon Madison Martin McDowell Mecklenburg Mitchell Montgomery Moore Nash New Hanover Northampton Onslow Orange Pamlico Pasquotank Pender Perquimans Person Pitt Polk Randolph Richmond Robeson Rockingham Rowan Rutherford Sampson Scotland Stanly Stokes Surry Swain Transylvania Tyrrell Union Vance Wake Warren Washington Watauga Wayne Wilkes Wilson Yadkin Yancey CLERK OF COURT Will R. Crocker Ronald H. Metts Sion H.Kelly M. E. Creech Nellie L. Bess A. W. Perry James W. Cody Mary K. Wynne Ruth B.Williams Robert M. Blackburn Arthur Ray Ledford Charles M.Johnson Charles M. McLeod Rachel M. Joyner Louise D. Rehder R. Jennings White, Jr. Everitte Barbee Frank S. Frederick Sadie W. Edwards Frances W. Thompson Frances N. Futch W.J.Ward W. Thomas Humphries Sandra Gaskins Judy P. Arledge John H. Skeen Miriam F. Greene Ben G. Floyd, Jr. FrankieC. Williams Francis Glover Joan M. Jenkins Charlie T. McCullen J. Mason McGregor Joe H. Lowder Robert Miller DavidJ.Beal Harold H. Sandlin Marian M. McMahon Jessie L. Spencer Nola H. Cunningham Mary Lou M. Barnett J. Russell Nipper Anne F. Davis Louise S. Allen John T. Bingham Shelton Jordan Wayne Roope William G. Stewart Harold J. Long Arnold E. Higgins 38 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Clerks of Superior Court A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for four-year terms by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 counties. The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide special proceedings and is, ex officio, judge of probate, in addition to performing record-keeping and ad-ministrative functions for both the superior and district courts of his county. Jurisdiction The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court includes the probate of wills and administration of dece-dents' estates. It also includes such "special proceedings" as adoptions, condemnations of private property under the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings to establish boundaries, foreclosures, and certain proceedings to administer the estates of minors and incompetent adults. The right of appeal from the clerks' judgments in such cases lies to the superior court. The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and other process necessary to execute the judgments en-tered in the superior and district courts of his county. For certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is authorized to accept defendants' waiver of appearance and plea of guilty and to impose a fine in accordance with a schedule established by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges. Administration The clerk of superior court performs administrative duties for both the superior and district courts of his county. Among these duties are the maintenance of court records and indexes, the control and accounting of funds, and the furnishing of information to the Ad-ministrative Office of the Courts. In most counties, the clerk continued to perform cer-tain functions related to preparation of civil case calen-dars, and in many counties the clerk's staff assisted the district attorney in preparing some criminal case calen-dars as well. Ending with fiscal year 1979-80, ultimate responsibility for civil case calendaring was vested in "calendar committees" chaired by the clerk and com-prised of members of the county bar. (As of July 1, 1980, these committees were abolished by the Supreme Court and ultimate responsibility for civil case calendaring was vested in the State's senior resident superior court judges and chief district court judges.) Day-to-day calendar preparation is the clerk's responsibility in all districts ex-cept those served by "trial court administrators." Resources A total of $24,283,713 was expended in 1979-80 for operation of the 100 clerks of superior court offices, an increase of 13.2% over 1978-79 expenditures of $2 1,457, - 921. Included in the total were expenditures for jurors' fees, supplies, postage, telephone and office expenses for all local Judicial Department personnel, and the salaries and benefits of the clerks and their staffs. The 1979-80 total made up 34.1% of General Fund expenditures for operating expenses of the entire Judicial Department; this percentage share of the total is approximately equal to the percentage expended for operations of the clerks' offices in 1978-79. 1979-80 Caseload Filings of estates cases totalled 34,670 cases in 1979-80, an increase of 5.3% over the number (32,926) filed in 1978-79. Estates case dispositions totalled 32,093 cases in 1979-80, or 2.3% more than the 1978-79 total of 21,378 cases. As has been usual in recent years, however, filings outnumbered dispositions in 1979-80 and the number of pending estates cases at the end of the year (50,534 cases) was larger than the number pending at the beginning (47,957 cases), an increase of 5.4%; There were 29,830 special proceedings filed in 1979- 80, an increase of 7.3% over 1978-79 filings of 27,799 cases. Special proceedings case dispositions also rose, although at a slower rate: the 1979-80 total of 27,925 cases disposed of is 4.5% above the previous year's total of 26,717. The result was a widening gap between filings and dispositions and an increase in the number of cases pending, from 19,453 cases pending on July 1, 1979 to 21,358 cases pending on June 30, 1980. This represents an increase of almost ten percent. More detailed information on the clerks' estates and special proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this Report. 39 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Clerks of Superior Court Educational Activity Utilizing State appropriations, the Judicial Depart-ment sponsored the following educational activities for clerks of superior court in 1979-80: • the Annual Conference of the Association of Clerks of Superior Court, July 25-27 in Winston-Salem, at-tended by 81 clerks; and • the Annual Conference of the Association of Assis-tant and Deputy Clerks of Superior Court, July 18- 20 in Asheville, attended by 287 assistant and deputy clerks. Association of Clerks of Superior Court (Officers as of June 30, 1980) A.E. Blackburn, Forsyth County, President Ben G. Floyd, Jr., Robeson County, First Vice President Louise B. Wilson, Alamance County Second Vice President George T. Griffin, Cumberland County, Secretary Nola H. Cunningham, Union County, Treasurer Major Joines, Burke County, Shelton Jordan, Wayne County, and Ruth B. Williams, McDowell County (ex officio), Additional Executive Committee Members 40 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 Public Defenders In 1979-80 there were five public defenders in North Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 12, 18, 26, 27A and 28. (By action of the 1979 General Assembly in its second session in 1980, a sixth public defender will begin serving District 3 on January 1, 1981.) These officials and their assistants provide legal representation for per-sons in designated categories who are determined to be indigent. The public defender for District 28 is appoin-ted by the senior resident superior court judge from recommendations submitted by the district bar; for the other districts, the appointment is by the Governor from recommendations of the respective district bars. Their terms are four years. Each public defender is by statute provided one full-time assistant; additional full-time or part-time assistants may be authorized by the Ad-ministrative Office of the Courts. Duties A person is determined to be indigent if he is found "financially unable to secure legal representation." He is entitled to State-paid legal representation in: any proceeding which may result in (or which seeks relief from) confinement, a fine of $500 or more, or extradi-tion to another State; a proceeding alleging mental il-lness or incapacity which may result in hospitalization, sterilization, or the loss of certain property rights; and juvenile proceedings which may result in confinement, transfer to superior court for a felony trial, or a transfer of custody upon a finding of abuse or neglect. Most cases of State-paid representation of indigents in these five districts are handled by the public defen-ders. In unusual circumstances — such as the existence of a conflict of interests — an indigent in one of these districts may be represented by private counsel, appoin-ted by the court and paid a fee by the State for his legal services. In the other 28 districts the assigned private counsel system is the only one used. Resources A total of $1,404,715 was expended for the operation of the five public defenders' offices in 1979-80, an in-crease of 22.2% over 1978-79 expenditures of $1,149,780. The 1979-80 total is two percent of all General Fund ex-penditures for the operating expenses of the entire Judicial Department. This percentage share is slightly above the percentage of total Judicial Department ex-penditures spent for the public defenders' offices in 1978-79. 1979-80 Caseload The five public defenders' offices handled a total of 11,558 cases, including both trials and appeals, in 1979- 80. This represents an increase of 5.3% over the 10,972 cases handled by these offices during the 1978-79 fiscal year. Additional information on the operation of these offices is contained in Part III, "Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents." Educational Activity Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Department sponsored the following educational activities for public defenders in 1979-80: • a Fall training session, October 24-26 in Boone, at-tended by the five public defenders and 37 assistant public defenders; and • the Public Defenders Association Spring Con-ference, May 28-30 in Wrightsville Beach, attended by four public defenders and 30 assistant public defenders. PUBLIC DEFENDERS (As of June 30, 1980) District 12 Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville District 18 Wallace G. Harrelson, Greensboro District 26 Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte District 27A Curtis O. Harris, Gastonia District 28 J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville The Association of Public Defenders (Officers as of June 30, 1980) Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville, President Lawrence B. Langston, Gastonia, Vice President Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte, Secretary Deno G. Economou, Greensboro, Treasurer 41 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Administrative Office of the C ourts The Director of the Administrative Office of the Courtsand staff perform a variety of functions for the Judicial Department; these are enumerated in Article 29 of Chapter 7A of the North Carolina General Stat-utes. The Director is appointed by the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court and serves at his pleasure. Effective January 1, 1980, the Administrative Office was reorganized as reflected in the chart below. The pur-pose of the reorganization was to provide a more unified centralized management structure along functional lines. The Assistant Director for Legal Services, in addition to assisting the Chief in making assignments of superior court judges and assisting the Supreme Court in prepara-tion of calendars of superior court trial sessions, now has responsibility for Juvenile Services, the Office of Coun-sel, and the Research and Planning Office. The Assistant Director for Management Services (a new position) has responsibility for Fiscal Services, Per-sonnel, and Records Management. The activities of the various components of the Ad-ministrative Office of the Courts during 1979-80 are summarized in the following pages. A total of $1,800,869 was expended from the State's General Fund for operating expenses of the Ad-ministrative Office of the Courts during 1979-80, which amounts to 2.5% of General Fund expenditures for the Judicial Department. Organization of the Administrative Office of the Courts (As of June 30, 1980) Director Assistant Director for Management Services Assistant Director for Legal Services Information Services Trial Court Services Fiscal Services Juvenile Services Records Management Personnel Counsel Research & Planning 42 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Administrative Office Of the Courts Fiscal Services The Controller supervises this component of manage-ment services which includes budgeting, payroll and other disbursements and related accounting, auditing, purchasing, printing, and warehousing of forms and sup-plies. During the 1979-80 fiscal year, expenditures for the operation of the Judicial Department totaled $71,862,- 275. Judicial Department receipts, consisting of courts costs, fees, fines and forfeitures, and recovery of pay-ments in judgments for indigent representation totalled $49,31 1,081. As required by State statutes these receipts were disbursed as follows: $21,467,077 to the State Treasurer for the General Fund and $2,439,492 for the Law Enforcement Officers' Retirement Fund; $24,588,- 139 distributed among the 100 counties; and $816,373 distributed among various municipalities throughout the State. An important aspect of fiscal operations in the Judicial Department is the handling of funds by the clerk of superior court located in each of the 100 counties of the State. Uniform accounting rules and procedures are prescribed for these activities in the clerks' offices, which include receipt and disbursement of court costs, fees, fines, bond forfeitures, and cash bonds, as well as pay-ments in accord with court judgments. During 1979-80 a pilot project featuring an electronic cash register/validating system was implemented in the clerk's office in Cumberland county, to complement the mini-computer accounting system that has been opera-tional for some years. Results of this experimental pro-ject indicate that the cashier's operation in the clerk's of-fice is thereby made more efficient. Records Management The Records Management Officer monitors the record-keeping procedures applicable to the activities of the office of clerk of superior court in each of the 100 counties, and develops recommendations for improved clerk office operations, providing assistance to in-dividual offices as required. He reviews issues of staffing adequacy and job duties pertaining to the clerks' offices and participates in training activities for clerk personnel. Liaison is maintained with other governmental agencies which have working relationships with clerks' offices: the Division of Archives and History on records manage-ment and retention, the Division of Motor Vehicles on traffic case reports, and county governments on space re-quirements for clerks' offices. He participates in review of new legislation affecting the clerks' offices, in dis-seminating information on such changes in the laws and in developing record-keeping procedures required by new legislation. In addition, the Records Management Officer super-vises a records management program for the Ad-ministrative Office of the Courts. During 1979-80 a criminal card index system was in-stalled in the clerk's office in three counties, bringing to a total of 40 counties in which this system is now used. The criminal card index system has replaced a more cumber-some indexing system, providing a more convenient source for ready information. Personnel The Personnel Officer supervises a comprehensive per-sonnel program for the approximately 3,400 employees of the Judicial Department, including administration of a classification and pay plan for the large majority of em-ployees, certification of employee salaries, administra-tion of fringe benefits (including longevity and workmen's compensation payments) and administration of an employee relations program for personnel of the Administrative Office of the Courts. He is also responsi-ble for the assignment of court reporters for the trial courts. During the 1979-80 year, in addition to administration of regular personnel activities, the following were accom-plished: (1) Procedures were developed for implementation, as of July 1, 1980, of changes in granting perfor-mance salary increases to employees whose salaries are at step 3 or above in their respective salary grades. Instead of having such merit salary increments based on the anniversary date of em-ployment, a new policy established four quarterly dates (the first day of the months of August, November, February and May) on which perfor-mance salary increases would be effective. (2) Comprehensive classification and pay reviews were conducted in the clerks' offices in 12 coun-ties; and the planning and scheduling of similar reviews in other clerks' offices to take place dur-ing the coming year were completed. (3) A special review of the classification and pay plan for the 31 chief court counselor positions in the Juvenile Services Division was begun. Juvenile Services The Juvenile Services Division administers the state-wide juvenile court counselor program for children al-leged or adjudicated to be delinquent or undisciplined. Services include intake (pre-hearing studies of children alleged to be delinquent or undisciplined and determi-nation whether or not a petition should be filed in dis-trict court); probation (supervision within the com-munity for those adjudicated to be delinquent or un- 43 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Administrative Office Of The Courts disciplined and who have not been committed to train-ing school); and aftercare (supervision within the com-munity for children conditionally released from a train-ing school). The services are delivered locally by court counselors assigned to each judicial district, under the immediate supervision of a chief court counselor. As of January 1 , 1 980 a new Juvenile Code became ef-fective for the State. The new code specifies several categories of non-divertible felony offenses for intake and introduced a new category of supervision for un-disciplined and delinquent children. The new category, "protective supervision," is the status of a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent or undisciplined and is placed under the supervision of a court counselor but is not on probation. The new category does not remove or replace that for undisciplined children, and may be used in lieu of probation for delinquent children. The dis-positional alternatives for delinquent children were ex-panded and include restitution, fines, community ser-vices, confinement on an intermittent basis in an ap-propriate detention facility, and restriction of driving privileges. The disposition of probation was limited to a length of one year with the provision for a one-year ex-tension after a hearing to determine the need for such ex-tension. During the 1979-80 fiscal year a total of 8,306 new cases were added to the court counselors' probation caseloads and a total of 8,752 cases were terminated. The daily average probation caseload, statewide, was 5,- 884 during the year, compared with a daily average caseload during 1978-79 of 6,378 cases. The precise reasons for the 7.75% decrease in daily average statewide caseload handled by the court counselors cannot be identified. However, it appears that this development was due, at least in part, to the various changes in the Juvenile Code described above. Program reviews and evaluations were conducted in each judicial district during the year to determine the level of services being delivered and adherence to minimum standards of the Division which are uniformly applicable across the State. Training continued to receive major emphasis during the year, including the following activities: • one orientation session for 12 new court counselors; • a required course in seven sessions for court coun-selors, counselor trainees, intake counselors, and supervisory counselors, with a total of 230 persons attending; • a required course for chief court counselors and ad-ministrative personnel, attended by 30 persons; • a one-day session on the Juvenile Code attended by 14 chief counselors; • a course on the Juvenile Code revisions and the community-based alternatives programs, attended by 37 judges; • Third N.C. Conference for Juvenile Court Coun-selors and Judges, on the theme of "Juvenile Justice—Treatment and Prevention Perspectives", with 270 in attendance; and • nine special interest courses in counseling tech-niques and theories, presented as optional training in a total of 10 sessions across the State, with a total attendance of 132. During the year, tuition fees were reimbursed for a total of 19 Division employees, and a total of 105 Divi-sion employees participated in individual learning projects. Counsel The Counsel for the Administrative Office of the Courts provides legal advice and assistance to clerks of court, magistrates, and other directly concerned with courtroom proceedings, as well as to administrative personnel in the Judicial Department. While most fre-quently this service is by telephone response, often the need for guidance is met through memoranda for gen-eral distribution. Forms for use in the trials courts and in the offices of the clerks of superior court are prepared and up-dated, usually upon need arising from new legislation or recent court decisions. The Counsel participates in educational and training activities for the clerks of superior courts and their assis-tants and deputies, including special programs for new clerks and for new employees in the clerks' offices. During the 1979-80 year, requests for legal assistance by telephone averaged 10 to 15 per day; and requests for legal assistance requiring written responses averaged about 15 per week. Research and Planning This division has responsibility for conducting research and preparing reports and papers on problems or issues relevant to the courts of North Carolina. Staff assistance is provided for the North Carolina Judicial Planning Committee. In addition, the division has responsibilities for the LEAA grants management func-tions for the Judicial Department, and for the compila-tion, printing and distribution of the Annual Reports of the Administrative Office of the Courts. During the first part of the 1979-80 year, work was completed on the production and distribution of the 1978 Annual Report. The Annual Report was then com-piled on a calendar-year basis. The policy decision was then made by the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts to change the annual reporting period 44 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Administrative Office Of The Courts from a calendar year to a fiscal year basis (July 1 through June 30). Thus, during the latter months of the 1979-80 year a second annual report was compiled, prin-ted and distributed, covering the period July, 1978 through June 30, 1979. During the Fall of 1979 the Research and Planning staff conducted studies regarding the principal problems and issues confronting the North Carolina court system and, on behalf of the Judicial Planning Committee, sur-veyed some 600 Judicial Department officials and mem-bers of the North Carolina Bar, to obtain their views on this subject. The results of that survey were reported to the Judicial Planning Committee. Thereafter, in February, 1980, the Committee adopted an "Agenda for 1980-83", comprising its priority list of issues and problems confronting the North Carolina courts which should receive attention during the next three years. Copies of that Agenda were produced and distributed to officials of the Judicial Department, members of the State Bar and to various officials in the Executive and Legislative branches of government. The Research and Planning staff developed proposed LEAA fund allocations for the Judicial Department for the 1980-81 Federal fiscal year, for the consideration of the Judicial Planning Committee in April, 1980. Thereafter, the decision became final at the Federal level that the LEAA grant program would not be continued. Thus, new LEAA grant funds for the 1980-81 Federal fiscal year were not received. Although new LEAA grant funds were not received in 1980, several LEAA projects will remain active for another year or two, from funds previously ap-propriated by the Congress. The LEAA Grants Management Section was involved during 1979-80 in the on-going administration of 16 LEAA-fund projects. Ap-plications for 13 projects were prepared and approved for LEAA funding by the Governor's Crime Commis-sion, the State Planning Agency for LEAA purposes. In addition, the LEAA Grants Manager participated with representatives of the Governor's Crime Commission in a total of 11 monitoring visits for review of various Judicial Department projects supported by LEAA funds. Information Services This division has responsibility for collecting case data and for implementing an automated information system for the Judicial Department. Case data is reported manually by the Clerks of Court of the 100 North Carolina counties to this division for data entry and computer processing. Case volume statistics are generated from this information and produced on a quarterly basis. In addition, juvenile case data are reported and processed, thus bringing the num-ber of transactions processed during the fiscal year over the three million mark. Additional progress was made on the automated in-formation system during the 1979-80 year. Four coun-ties, Franklin, Vance, Nash, and Warren, are now re-porting case data through the information system for district and superior court criminal cases. The Informa-tion Services Division has provided to these counties computer-produced district and superior court indexes, district court calendars, and automatic (computer) transfer of appeal cases for cases appealed from district court to superior court. Services in the design and de-velopment stage include computer-produced superior court calendars, warrants, orders for arrest, and sub-poenas. Training of clerk office personnel in the area of automation has not yet begun in other counties but is anticipated in the near future. Trial Court Services This division is responsible for directing the trial court administrator program. From 1977 to 1979 this program was operated as a pilot project in three judicial districts (10th, 22d and 28th) under an LEAA grant. In 1979 the General Assembly provided full state funding for the program and expanded it from three to ten posi-tions. The responsibilities of the trial court ad-ministrator as defined in G.S. 7A-355 include assisting in the administration of the civil dockets of the judicial district, management of the jury system, and such other general management functions as may be assigned by the court. The State Supreme Court in its recently revised Rule 2 of the Supplemental Rules of Civil Procedure provided for the delegation of civil case management respon-sibility by the senior resident superior court judge and the chief district court judge, to the trial court ad-ministrator in those districts having such position. The trail court administrator is appointed by and is responsi-ble to the senior resident superior court judge of the district. With the exception of the three pilot judicial districts, the trial court administrator program is still in its in-fancy. Thus far, administrators have been employed in an additional three districts (3d, 18th, and 26th). As of June 30, 1980, the three pilot judicial districts having a trial court administrator were among the top four districts in the state having the lowest average age of superior court civil cases. These three districts also ranked among those with the highest ratio of disposi-tions to caseload, with the metropolitan pilot districts (the 10th and 28th) consistently ranking ahead of other metropolitan districts in these measures of case manage-ment efficiency. 45 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Administrative Office Of The Courts Although statewide figures on jury utilization are not currently maintained, trial court administrators have made significant improvements in their own judicial dis-tricts in this area of court operations. The percentage of jurors who are summond but not used for a trial has been significantly reduced along with the cost per jury selected. The "one-day, one-trial jury system" operated by trial court administrators in Wake and Buncombe Counties have proved popular with the public as well as economical. The mandate of the program is to achieve in every judicial district served by a trial court ad-ministrator the level of performance attained in the pilot districts. The Division also provides assistance in civil case management to judges without trial court ad-ministrators. This service was provided to more than a third of the senior resident superior court judges during the 1979-80 year. Plans are being made to extend this program to chief district court judges and to develop management assistance programs to address other areas of local court administration. Two jury-management projects were initiated during the 1979-80 year. One project will produce a set of guidelines to assist counties interested in computerizing the jury selection and summoning process. Two docu-ments will be prepared and published under this project, with one document outlining in general terms the overall design and operation of a computer-aided jury selection system and the other containing software documenta-tion. The completion of this project is scheduled to coin-cide with preparation of the 1982-83 master jury lists by the 100 counties of the State. Another project begun during the year is the produc-tion of audio-visual orientation programs for jurors in six metropolitan courts. A model script was drafted, and arrangements were made with other state agencies to provide technical support for this project, which is ex-pected to be completed during the coming year. 4b ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Judicial Planning Committee (Members as of June 30, 1980) Associate Justice J. Frank Huskins, Raleigh, Chairman Magistrate C.E. Baker, Holly Springs District Court Judge Thomas D. Cooper, Jr., Burlington* District Attorney Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Reidsville Public Defender Wallace C. Harrelson, Greensboro Representative Edward S. Holmes, Pittsboro Clerk of Superior Court Rachel M. Joyner, Nashville Superior Court Judge Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton Administrative Officer of the Courts Bert M. Montague, Raleigh * Deceased, August 30, 1980 Chief Court of Appeals Judge Naomi E. Morris, Raleigh Senator Willis P. Whichard, Durham Ex-Officio Members President of the N.C. State Bar E.K. Powe, Durham President of the N.C. Bar Association Dewey W. Wells, Elizabeth City President of the N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers Alfred S. Bryant, Jr., Charlotte President of the N.C. Association of Black Lawyers Charles L. Becton, Chapel Hill President of the N.C. Association of Women Attorneys Carolyn McAllaster, Durham The Judicial Planning Committee 1979-80 The North Carolina Judicial Planning Committee was appointed by the Supreme Court in 1977, as one of the adjunct committees of the Governor's Crime Commis-sion, the LEAA State Planning Agency. The Committee considers problems and issues affecting States's courts and provides recommendations to the State Supreme Court as well as to the Governor's Crime Commission. The Committee has a special role in the allocation of LEAA funds available to the court system. (As the Con-gress decided not to continue the LEAA grant program for the 1980-81 Federal fiscal year, no new grants funds were received beyond the 1979-80 fiscal period. Activity under various projects funded by prior-year LEAA funds will continue for another year or two until those projects have run their course.) Staff assistance for the Judicial Planning Committee is provided by the Research and Planning Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts. During the period from July 1, 1979 through June 30, 1980, the Judicial Planning Committee had a total of five meetings: August 7, 1979; September 7, 1979; November 2, 1979; February 29, 1980 and April 25, 1980. The meetings in August and September, 1979 were joint meetings with the Corrections Committee of the Governor's Crime Commission, to consider issues of common interest to the courts and the correction agen-cies. At the August meeting the two committees heard reports on prison population projections, alternatives to incarceration, deferred prosecution programs, regula-tion of bail bondsmen and sentencing. At the Septem-ber, 1979 joint meeting the committees considered alter-natives to incarceration and adopted several recommen-dations to be forwarded to the Governor's Crime Com-mission, relating to financial restitution for victims of crime, community service programs, citizen dispute mediation, and improved probation services. At the November, 1979 and February 2, 1980 meetings, the Judicial Planning Committee approved revisions to 1979-80 allocations of LEAA funds to the Judicial Department, necessitated by reductions in the amount of Federal funds received; and considered a broad range of issues and problems identified as con-fronting the court system, making conclusions on a list of such issues regarded as of priority importance which would be incorporated in an "agenda" to be further considered during the 1980-83 period. Copies of this special agenda report were thereafter distributed to about 600 Judicial Department officials, members of the North Carolina State Bar, and various officials of the Legislative and Executive Branches of State Govern-ment. 47 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Judicial Planning Committee At its April, 1980 meeting the Committee adopted a result that no new LEAA funds were received for the schedule of proposed LEAA allocations for various 1980-81 Federal fiscal year, beginning October 1, 1980. Judicial Department projects, in anticipation of receipt Thus, for all practical purposes, the Judicial Planning of LEAA funds for the 1980-81 fiscal year. Some Committee's special role in the allocation of LEAA months thereafter, a final decision was made in the Con- funds for court system projects has ended, gress to discontinue the LEAA grant program, with the 48 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The North Carolina Courts Commission (Members as of June 30, 1980) Appointed by the Governor Hon. H. Parks Helms, Charlotte, Chairman Charles L. Becton, Chapel Hill Hon. David M. Britt, Raleigh I.T. Valentine, Jr., Nashville Hon. Louise B. Wilson, Graham Appointed by the President of the Senate Hon. Henson P. Barnes, Goldsboro Fielding Clark, II, Hickory E. Lawrence Davis, Winston-Salem Becky Hundley, Thomasville Howard F. Twiggs, Raleigh Appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives Harold L. Kennedy, Jr., Winston-Salem Hon. Ralph S. Knott, Louisburg William G. Smith, Wilmington Jim Van Camp, Southern Pines (Vacancy) 1 Ex officio John W. Campbell, Lumberton, N.C. State Bar Robert M. Clay, Raleigh, N.C. Bar Association Bert M. Montague, Raleigh, Administrative Officer of the Courts John R. Jordan, Jr., of Raleigh, resigned his membership on the commission prior to June 30, 1980; a successor had not been appointed by the Speaker of the House by the end of the fiscal year. The North Carolina Courts Commission was esta-blished by the 1979 General Assembly "to make con-tinuing studies of the structure, organization, jurisdic-tion, procedures and personnel of the Judicial Depart-ment and of the General Court of Justice and to make recommendations to the General Assembly for such changes therein as will facilitate the administration of justice. " The new Commission met first on March 17, 1980, and again in April and May. It has begun to invite all State officials and agencies dealing with the courts to make presentations to the Commission of their sugges-tions for improving the court system. From these suggestions the Commision is establishing a priority list of items for study, and it will make its recommendations from its list. Topics under consideration by the Courts Commission include: — possible expansion of the Public Defender System; - relief for the Appellate Division; — the office of the district attorney; — the office of the clerk of superior court - decriminalization of minor traffic offenses, and — the trial court administrator project. Specific legislation is being formulated for presentation to the 1981 General Assembly. 49 ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1979-80 The Judicial Standards Commission (Members as of June 30, 1980) Appointed by
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
|8655 KB; 180 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
101: m/to
North Carolina State Library.
SNortlj Carolina Courts
Annual Report
of tl|0
|OCLC Number-Original