(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina courts : annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts"

Id I: mo/j/ 
C s 



^xxrtij (Earnlma (Eaurte 



1990-91 




■ | <W . ~ 




■':■— ^ .'-'\ 



■ ~* -~ .""*'"- 









N.C. DOCUMENTS 
CLEARINGHOUSE 



JVnnual ^Report 
of tij£ 



AUG 23 1993 

N.C. STATE LIBRARY 
RALE!G< 



The Cover: The Halifax County Courthouse in Halifax, North Carolina was 
completed in 1987. Located on a tract of some one hundred acres and approached by a 
long drive, the Flemish bond brick building presents an impressive view. The eclectic 
design combines Neoclassical, French and Italian influences, with a symmetrical main 
block dominated by a five-bay colonnade with Italianate arched openings. The rear of 
the building features a large Palladian window and is connected to an adjoining Public 
Safety building by a colonnaded walkway. 

Halifax County was formed in 1758 from Edgecombe County and was named in honor 
of George Montagu Dunk, Earl of Halifax. Halifax County was the home of the late 
Chief Justice Joseph Branch, to whom this Annual Report is dedicated. 



NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 



1990-91 




ANNUAL REPORT 



of the 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 



IN MEMORIAM 




JOSEPH BRANCH 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
AUGUST 1, 1979 — AUGUST 31, 1986 

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE 
AUGUST 29, 1966 — JULY 31, 1979 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 



http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1991nort 




ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

JUSTICE BUILDING 
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 



The Honorable James G. Exum, Jr., Chief Justice 
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 
Raleigh, North Carolina 

Dear Mr. Chief Justice: 

In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes, I herewith transmit the 
Twenty-fifth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1, 
1990 — June 30, 1991. 

Fiscal year 1990-91 marks the seventh consecutive year with significant increases in filings and 
dispositions in the Superior Courts. During 1 990-9 1 , as compared to 1 989-90, total case filings in Superior 
Court increased by 5.6% and dispositions increased by 9.8%. In District Court, total case filings decreased 
by 0.8% and total dispositions increased by 1 .4%. The decrease in total filings during 1990-9 1 , compared to 
1989-90, represents the first decrease since fiscal 1981-82. In both Superior and District Court, because 
total filings were greater than total dispositions, more cases were pending at the end of the fiscal year than 
were pending at the beginning. 

Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, and 
writing required to produce this Annual Report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, principal 
responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Information Services Division. 
The principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of the clerks of 
superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of the State. The Clerk of the Supreme Court 
and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals provided the case data relating to our appellate courts. 

Without the responsible work of many persons across the State this report would not have been possible. 

Respectfully submitted, 

L t- n »-i I - 1 1 *-t L . r /-i t-\ r-v~t r\ r\ I r 



Franklin Freeman, Jr. 
Director 



June 1992 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Part I 

The 1990-91 Judicial Year in Review 

North Carolina Judicial Branch Fact Sheet 1 

The 1990-91 Judicial Year in Review 2 

Part II 

Court System Organization and Operations in 1990-91 

Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 9 

The Present Court System 12 

Organization and Operations 

The Supreme Court 16 

The Court of Appeals 27 

Map of Judicial Divisions and Superior Court Districts 31 

Map of District Court Districts 32 

Map of Prosecutorial Districts 33 

The Superior Courts 34 

The District Courts 37 

District Attorneys 42 

Clerks of Superior Court 46 

The Administrative Office of the Courts 49 

Juvenile Services Division 51 

Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services 53 

Trial Court Administrators 55 

Public Defenders 57 

Appellate Defender 59 

Court-Ordered Arbitration 60 

Child Custody and Visitation Mediation 63 

The North Carolina Courts Commission 65 

The Judicial Standards Commission 67 

Part III 
Court Resources in 1990-91 

Judicial Department Finances 

Appropriations 71 

Expenditures 74 

Receipts 76 

Distribution of Receipts 77 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 80 

Judicial Department Personnel 88 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1990-91 

Trial Courts Case Data 91 

Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 95 

District Court Division Caseflow Data 187 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Parti 
The 1990-91 Judicial Year in Review 

North Carolina Judicial Branch Fact Sheet 1 

Part II 
Court System Organization and Operations in 1990-91 

Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the 

Present Court System 12 

Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina 

Trial Courts 15 

The Supreme Court of North Carolina 16 

Supreme Court, Caseload Inventory 18 

Supreme Court, Appeals Filed 19 

Supreme Court, Petitions Filed 19 

Supreme Court, Caseload Types 20 

Supreme Court, Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage 21 

Supreme Court, Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 21 

Supreme Court, Disposition of Appeals 22 

Supreme Court, Manner 'of Disposition of Appeals 23 

Supreme Court, Type of Disposition of Petitions 23 

Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Disposed, 

1985-86—1990-91 24 

Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed, 

1985-86—1990-91 25 

Supreme Court, Processing Time for Disposed Cases 26 

The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 27 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 29 

Court of Appeals, Manner of Case Dispositions 29 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1985-86—1990-91 30 

Map of Judicial Divisions and Superior Court Districts 31 

Map of District Court Districts 32 

Map of Prosecutorial Districts 33 

Judges of Superior Court • 34 

Special, Emergency, and Retired/ Recalled Judges of Superior Court 35 

District Court Judges 37 

District Attorneys 42 

Clerks of Superior Court 46 

Administrative Office of the Courts 49 

Juvenile Services Division — Chief Court Counselors 52 

Guardian Ad Litem Division District Administrators 54 

Trial Court Administrators 55 

Public Defenders 57 

Office of the Appellate Defender ■ 59 

Summary of Arbitration Activity 61 

Child Custody and Visitation Mediation Activity 64 

The North Carolina Courts Commission 65 

The Judicial Standards Commission 67 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Part III 
Court Resources in 1990-91 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 71 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 72 

General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of the 

Judicial Department and All State Agencies, 1984-85—1990-91 73 

Judicial Department Expenditures, 1990-9 1 74 

Judicial Department Expenditures, 1990-91 and 1984-85 — 1990-91 75 

Judicial Department Receipts 76 

Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 77 

Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the 

Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 78 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 81 

State Mental Health Hospital Commitment Hearings 82 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem Cases and Expenditures 83 

Judicial Department Personnel 88 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1990-91 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends 96 

Superior Courts, Caseload 97 

Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 98 

Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Trends 99 

Superior Courts, Civil Case Filings By Case-Type 100 

Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory, By District and County 101 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition 106 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, By District and County 107 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Pending, By District and County 114 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Disposed, By District and County 119 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 124 

Superior Courts, Filings and Dispositions For Estates and Special Proceedings, 

By District and County ^ 125 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases 130 

Superior Courts, Criminal Case Filings By Case-Type 131 

Superior Courts, Caseload Inventory for Criminal Cases, By District and County 132 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies 138 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies, By District and County 139 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors 147 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors, By District and County 148 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Pending, By District and County 156 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Disposed, By District and County 170 

District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 189 

District Courts, Caseload Trends 190 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 191 

District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Cases 192 



in 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Filings By Case-Type 193 

District Courts. Civil Caseload Inventory, By District and County 194 

District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 199 

District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, 

By District and County 200 

District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Pending, 

By District and County 210 

District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Disposed, 

By District and County 215 

District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer 

Cases Pending, By District and County 220 

District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer 

Cases Disposed, By District and County 225 

District Courts, Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions, 

By District and County 230 

District Courts, Matters Alleged in Juvenile Petitions, 

By District and County 233 

District Courts, Adjudicatory Hearings For Juvenile Matters, 

By District and County 238 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Infraction 

and Criminal Cases 245 

District Courts, Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions, 

By District and County 246 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory, 

By District and County 25 1 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 256 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition, 

By District and County 257 

District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Pending, 

By District and County 263 

District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Disposed, 

By District and County 269 

District Courts, Infraction Case Filings and Dispositions, 

By District and County 275 



IV 



PARTI 



THE 1990-1991 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL BRANCH FACT SHEET 
Fiscal Year July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991 



Population and Area Served: 

6,700,000 

48,843 

100 



Population (approximate) 
Square Miles 
Counties 



Court Organization: 



44 Superior Court Districts for Administrative Purposes 

60 Superior Court Districts for Elective Purposes 

37 District Court Districts 

37 Prosecutorial Districts 

1 1 Public Defender Districts 



Numbers of Justices and Judges: 

7 Supreme Court Justices 
12 Court of Appeals Judges 
83 Superior Court Judges 
179 District Court Judges 



Numbers of Other Authorized Personnel: 

37 District Attorneys 

257 Assistant District Attorneys 

100 Clerks of Superior Court 

1,745 Clerk Personnel 

659 Magistrates 

1 1 Public Defenders 



75 Assistant Public Defenders 

12 Trial Court Administrators 

397 Juvenile Services Personnel 

77 Guardian Ad Litem Personnel 

197 Administrative Office of the Courts 

650 Other Staff 



Total Judicial Branch Personnel: 4,498 



BUDGET 



Total Judicial Branch Appropriations, 1990-91: 
Percent Increase from 1989-90: 

Total Judicial Branch Appropriations as a Percent of Total 
State General Fund Appropriations: 



$205,610,446 

2.39% 

2.87% 



CASES FILED AND DISPOSED, FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 








% Change 




% Change 








From 




From 


Court 




Filed 


1989-90 


Disposed 


1989-90 


Supreme Court: 












Appeals 




189 


8.0% 


173 


22.7% 


Petitions 




492 


-21.4% 


498 


-17.1% 


Court of Appeals: 












Appeals 




1,325 


-5.9% 


1,414 


3.5% 


Petitions 




415 


-8.0% 


415 


-3.7% 


Superior Court*: 




231,843 


4.1% 


218,005 


7.8% 


District Court**: 




2,253,348 


-0.8% 


2,175,869 


1.4% 


'Includes Felonies, Misdemeanors, 


Civil, Estates, and Special Proceedings. 






"Includes Criminal Non- 


vlotor Ver 


icle, Criminal Motor Vehicle, 


Infractions, Small Claims, 


Domestic Relations 


General Civil 


and Magistrate Appeals 


/ Transfers 


and Civil License Revocatioi 


is (Civil License Revocations are counted only ; 


it filing). 



THE 1990-91 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



This Annual Report on the work of North Carolina's 
Judicial Department is for the fiscal year which began 
July 1. 1990. and ended June 30, 1991. 

The Workload of the Courts 

Case filings in the Supreme Court during 1990-91 
totaled 189. compared with 175 filings during 1989-90. A 
total of 492 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, 
compared with 626 in 1989-90, and 53 petitions were 
allowed, compared with 106 in 1989-90. 

For the Court of Appeals for 1990-91, 1,325 appealed 
cases were filed, compared with 1,408 for the 189-90 
year. Petitions filed in 1990-91 totaled 415, compared 
with 451 during the 1989-90 year. 

More detailed data on the appellate courts are in- 
cluded in Part II of this Annual Report. 

In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal) 
increased by 5.6% to a total of 135,419 in 1990-91, 
compared with 128,215 in 1989-90. Superior court case 
dispositions increased by 9.8% to a total of 129,302, 
compared with 1 17,787 in 1989-90. As case filings during 
the year exceeded case dispositions, the total number of 
cases pending at the end of the year increased by 6,1 17. 

Not including juvenile proceedings and mental health 
hospital commitment hearings, the statewide total of 
district court filings (civil and criminal) during 1990-91 
was 2,253,348, a decrease of 17,108 (0.8%) from 1989-90 
filings of 2,270,456 cases; this marks the first decrease in 
total district court filings since fiscal 1981-82. During 
1990-91, a total of 651,728 infraction cases were filed 
along with a total of 493,974 criminal motor vehicle 
cases, for a combined total of 1,145,702 cases. This 
combined total is a decrease of 20,623 cases (1.8%) from 
the 1,166,325 motor vehicle and infraction cases filed 
during 1989-90. During 1990-91, filings of criminal non- 
motor vehicle cases in the district courts increased by 
6,958 cases (1.2%) to 610,286, compared with 603,328 
filed during 1989-90. Filings of civil magistrate cases in 
the district courts decreased by 13,363 (4.6%), to 279,209 
during 1990-91 compared with 292,572 during 1989-90. 
Domestic relations case filings in the district courts 
increased b 10.6%, from 77,140 in 1989-90 to 85,331 in 
1990-91. 

Operations of the superior and district courts are 
summarized in Part II of this Report, and detailed 
information on the caseloads is presented in Part IV for 
the 100 countis, and for the judicial and prosecutorial 
districts. 

Legislative Highlights 

Redistricting of District Court District 3 

District Court District 3 (Pitt, Carteret, Craven and 
Pamlico Counties) was divided into District Court Dis- 
tricts 3A (Pitt County) and 3B (Carteret, Craven and 
Pamlico Counties) (Session Laws 1991, Chapter 742, 
Section 12, amending G.S. 7A-133 effective September 



1, 1991). As a result, District Court Districts 3A and 3B 
will be coterminous with Superior Court and Prosecu- 
torial Districts 3A and 3B. The legislation allocates the 
seven district court judges presently authorized for 
District 3, with three judges allocated to District 3 A and 
four judges to District 3B. (This redistricting has been 
precleared by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant 
to the U.S. Voting Rights Act.) 

Expanded Jurisdiction of Clerks and Magistrates 

The jurisdiction of clerks and magistrates in worthless 
check cases was expanded to cases in which the maxi- 
mum amount of the check does not exceed $2,000 
(increased from $1,000) (Chapter 520, effective October 

I, 1991, amending G.S. 7 A- 180(8) for clerks and G.S. 
7A-273(6) and (8) for magistrates). 

Increases in Maximum Numbers of Magistrates 

The General Assembly increased the maximum num- 
ber of magistrates authorized in G.S. 7A-133 for the 
following counties: Dare, from 5 to 8; Beaufort, from 5 
to 8; Onslow, from 11 to 14; Wayne, from 8 to 11; 
Lenoir, from 7 to 10; Wake, from 17 to 20; Orange, from 
9 to 11; and Chatham, from 6 to 8 (Chapter 742, Section 

I I, effective July 1, 1991). (The maximums authorized in 
G.S. 7A-133 are not the numbers of positions actually 
established, but rather the numbers of positions that 
may Deallocated subject to funding and need.) 

Extend Nonbinding Arbitration and Custody Mediation 
Programs 

The General Assembly authorized the Administrative 
Office of the Courts to use $75,000 of the funds approp- 
riated for fiscal 1991-92 to expand implementation of 
two alternative dispute resolution programs to addi- 
tional districts or counties (Chapter 742, Section 10). 
The two programs are, first, under G.S. 7A-37.1, for 
mandatory nonbinding arbitration of civil actions in- 
volving claims of $15,000 or less, and second, under G.S. 
7A-494, for mediation of disputes over the custody or 
visitation of minor children. 

Court-Ordered Mediated Settlement Conferences 

New Section G.S. 7A-38 establishes a pilot program in 
judicial districts to be determined by the Administrative 
Office of the Courts and the senior resident superior 
court judge, under which superior court civil cases may 
be referred to a mediator for a pretrial settlement 
conference (Chapter 207, effective October 1, 1991). The 
legislation specifies that the senior resident superior 
court judge may order a mediated settlement conference 
for all or any part of a case, and authorizes the Supreme 
Court to adopt implementing rules. The AOC is author- 
ized to solicit private funds; no State funds are to be used 
to establish, conduct or evaluate the pilot program. The 
AOC is to submit a written report to the General 



THE 1990-91 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



Assembly by May 1, 1995, evaluating whether the medi- 
ation makes the operation of the superior courts more 
efficient, less costly, and more satisfying to litigants. 

Filing by Telefacsimile Authorized 

Rule 5(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, G.S. 1A-1, 
was amended to allow pleadings or other court papers to 
be filed with the clerk of superior court by telefacsimile 
transmission, //the Supreme Court and the Administra- 
tive Office of the Courts establish uniform rules, regula- 
tions, procedures, and specifications governing such 
filings (Chapter 168, effective May 30, 1991). 

Expansion of Automated Accounting System 

The General Assembly appropriated $453,617 for 
fiscal year 1991-92 to expand and enhance the auto- 
mated accounting system in clerks' offices (Chapter 742, 
Section 9). 

Community Penalties Program, Transfer and Changes 

The General Assembly transferred the Community 
Penalties Program from the Department of Crime Con- 
trol and Public Safety to the Administrative Office of the 
Courts (Chapter 566, effective July 1, 1991, recodifying 
G.S. 143B-500 et. seq. as G.S. 7A-770 et. seq.). The 
Community Penalties Program was created by the Com- 
munity Penalties Act of 1983 to reduce prison over- 
crowding by providing judges with community sen- 
tencing options to be used in lieu of and at less cost than 
imprisonment. The Program awards and administers 
grants to local nonprofit agencies, of which there are 
presently eighteen. (An additional program in Bun- 
combe County, similar to the others but not grant- 
funded, was transferred to AOC in 1987.) The local 
programs identify eligible convicted offenders and pre- 
pare community penalty plans for sentencing judges to 
consider. 

This legislation also amended G.S. 7A-771(5) regard- 
ing the types of offenders to be targeted for considera- 
tion of a community penalty plan. The Act defines 
"targeted offenders" as persons convicted of misde- 
meanors or Class H, I, or J felonies, who face an 
imminent and substantial threat of imprisonment. Pre- 
viously, only nonviolent offenders were targeted. The 
amendments remove this limitation, except for persons 
convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The amend- 
ments also add a requirement limiting "targeted of- 
fenders" to persons who would be eligible for intensive 
probation or house arrest. 

New and Revised Criminal Offenses 

As in previous years, in 1991 the General Assembly 
enacted legislation in areas of criminal law that, al- 
though not directly pertaining to court offices, impacts 
on criminal caseloads or procedures and thus affects 
court operations. Possession of drugs in prison or jail 



was made a Class I felony (Chapter 484, adding subsec- 
tion G.S. 90-95(e)(9) effective October 1, 1991), and 
additional drugs were added to the list of Schedule 
III controlled substances (Chapter 413, amending 
G.S. 90-91(k) effective July 1, 1991). Two bills ad- 
dressed the subject of "hate crimes" (Chapters 493 and 
702, both effective October 1, 1991). A new misde- 
meanor offense of ethnic intimidation was created in 
G.S. 14-401.14, and commission of an offense because of 
a person's race, color, religion or nationality was made 
an aggravating factor for felony sentencing under G.S. 
15 A- 1340.4(a)(1) and will enhance punishment of mis- 
demeanor offenses or make misdemeanor offenses Class 
J felonies under new subsection G.S. 14-3(c). Law 
enforcement officers were authorized to make war- 
rantless arrests for certain domestic assaults (Chapter 
150, amending G.S. 15A-401(b) effective October 1, 
1991). Other new offenses or expanded punishments 
included reclassification of worthless check offenses 
from misdemeanors to Class J felonies for checks in 
excess of $2,000 (Chapter 523, Section 1, amending G.S. 
14-107 effective October 1, 1991); possession of a weapon 
on educational property (Chapter 622 amending G.S. 
14-269.2 effective October 1, 1991); littering laws (Chap- 
ter 609, effective October 1, 1991); and criminally negli- 
gent hunting (Chapter 748 adding G.S. 1 13-290 effective 
October 1, 1991). 

Prison Facilities 

The General Assembly allocated $103.4 million of the 
$200 million in prison bond funds approved by the 
voters in a referendum in November 1990 (Chapter 689, 
Section 239). The authorized projects will add 3,298 beds 
to the State prison system. An additional $9.1 million 
was allocated to the Department of Human Resources to 
expand and renovate juvenile training schools to which 
juveniles may be committed after an adjudication of 
delinquency. 

Prison Population 

In Chapter 437, effective in stages, the General As- 
sembly amended G.S. 148-4.1, revising the maximum 
number of prisoners that can be housed in the State 
prison system before the Parole Commission must re- 
duce the prison population by granting parole to other- 
wise eligible offenders. The "prison cap" was reduced 
from 20,026 to 19,253 effective June 30, 1991, raised to 
19,986 effective February 1, 1992, and raised to 20,182 
effective May 1, 1992. The Secretary of Correction may 
advance or delay the effective dates by up to 45 days 
based on the availability of prison space. 

Fiscal Notes for Legislation Affecting Prisons 

New Section G.S. 120-36.7 requires preparation of a 
fiscal note estimating the costs of any proposed change 
in law that could cause a net increase in the number of 
incarcerated persons or in the length of time for which 



THE 1990-91 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



prisoners are incarcerated (Chapter 689, Section 340). 
The fiscal notes, which are to cover the first five years 
that the proposed change in law would be in effect, are to 
be prepared by the Fiscal Research Division of the 
General Assembly in consultation with the Sentencing 
and Policy Advisory Commission. (The Administrative 
Office of the Courts has been consulted routinely for 
necessary data and analysis in connection with fiscal 
notes. This law expands and institutionalizes the prepara- 
tion of fiscal notes.) 

Investigative Grand Juries Expanded; Sunset Removed 

The special type of grand jury that the General 
Assembly first authorized in 1986 for investigation of 
drug trafficking offenses was made permanent (Chapter 
686, removing the law's October 1, 1993, expiration 
date). This legislation also amends certain provisions of 
G.S. 15A-622(h) and G.S. 15A-623(h), permitting an 
investigative grand jury to be convened from an existing 
grand jury, allowing otherwise admissible testimony to 
be used at trial, specifying a twelve-month term for the 
members of an investigative grand jury, and requiring 
that when necessary to prevent disclosure of the grand 
jury's existence, the superior court judge may hear 
matters concerning an investigative grand jury in camera 
(not in open court) with a court reporter present. 

Increased Funding for Indigent Defense 

One of the fastest growing components of the Judicial 
Department budget has been the costs for providing 
legal representation for indigent persons who have a 
right to a court-appointed lawyer. The General Assembly 
appropriated the following increases: for the Indigent 
Persons' Attorney Fee Fund, $2,374,043 for 1991-92 and 
S2,369,249 for 1992-93; for the Special Capital Case 
Rehearing Fund, S547,626 for 1991-92 and $1,048,424 
for 1992-93; and for additional needs of the Guardian 
Ad Litem Volunteer and Contract Program, $225,000 
for each year of the 1991-1993 biennium. (These are 
expansion amounts; total indigent defense spending in 
1990-91 came to $29.4 million. The appropriations for 
1992-93 are subject to revision by the General Assembly 
in the 1992 Session.) 

Indigent Defense Studies 

The General Assembly directed the Administrative 
Office of the Courts to conduct two studies relating to 
the types of programs used to provide lawyers for 
indigent persons (Chapter 689, Section 81). First, the 
legislature requested a report on the cost-effectiveness of 
establishing a public defender office in three districts 
that do not presently have public defender offices: 
Districts 4A (Duplin, Jones and Sampson Counties), 5 
(New Hanover and Pender Counties) and 10 (Wake 
County). These districts were identified in a previous 
AOC study as being close to the point where a public 
defender office may be cost-effective. Second, the 



General Assembly requested a report on the cost- 
effectiveness of existing public defender offices. Final 
reports are to be submitted by May 20, 1992. 

Indigent Defense Contracting Pilot 

The General Assembly authorized the Administrative 
Office of the Courts to conduct a pilot project in three 
districts for providing indigent defense by means of 
"specialized" contracts with one or more private attor- 
neys (Chapter 575, Section 2). Authority already exists 
in G.S. 7A-344(4) for such specialized contract represen- 
tation in juvenile cases, but not for criminal or other 
indigent defense cases. A written evaluation of the pilot 
project is to be submitted to the General Assembly by 
May 1, 1993. 

Commitment Following Not Guilty by Reason of 
Insanity 

Following a study by a committee of the Legislative 
Research Commission, the General Assembly rewrote 
the laws governing civil commitment of persons charged 
with a crime and found not guilty by reason of insanity 
(Chapter 37, effective April 16, 1991, adding new sections 
G.S. 122C-268.1 and G.S. 122C-276.1, and amending 
G.S. 15A-1321 and other sections in G.S. Chapter 
1 22C). In place of provisions that apply to civil commit- 
ments generally, the legislation establishes special com- 
mitment standards and procedures for defendants found 
not guilty by reason of insanity. Immediately following 
such a disposition, the judge must order the defendant 
committed to a State 24-hour mental health facility. The 
first review of the commitment occurs at a hearing 
within fifty days (compared to ten days for commitments 
generally). The first and subsequent review hearings are 
held in the trial division in which the criminal case was 
tried and are open to the public (other commitment pro- 
ceedings are district court hearings and are confidential). 
At the first and subsequent hearings, committed persons 
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they 
are no longer dangerous to others and, if this burden is 
met, that they are no longer mentally ill or that confine- 
ment is no longer necessary (in other civil commitment 
proceedings, the State must show by clear, cogent and 
convincing evidence that the patient is mentally ill and 
dangerous to self or others). 

Family Law Changes 

The General Assembly enacted several changes in laws 
and procedures governing divorce and equitable distri- 
bution. G.S. 50-10 was amended to authorize use of sum- 
mary judgment in an action for absolute divorce (Chap- 
ter 568, effective October 1, 1991). Other measures 
included authorization for orders making interim trans- 
fers of assets while an equitable distribution action is 
pending (Chapter 635, adding G.S. 50-20(il) effective 
October 1, 1991); a rebuttable presumption that property 



THE 1990-91 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



obtained during marriage and before separation is mari- 
tal property (Chapter 625, amending G.S. 50-20(b)(I) 
effective October I, 1991); and an act authorizing the 
guardian of an incompetent spouse to commence domes- 
tic relations actions, including for equitable distribution 
but with an exception for absolute divorce (Chapter 610, 
adding G.S. 50-22 effective October 1, 1991). 

Court Costs Increased 

The 1991 Session of the General Assembly increased 
the costs for support of the General Court of Justice by 
four dollars in civil, criminal and infraction cases in 
superior and district courts (Chapter 742, Section 15 
amending G.S. 7A-304 and G.S. 7A-305 effective July 1, 
1991). 

New Positions 
The General Assembly appropriated or authorized the 



use of funds for the following new positions during fiscal 
1991-92: ten assistant district attorneys, one each for 
Prosecutorial Districts 7, 10, 15A, 19A, 20, 22, 25, and 
29, and two in District 26; seven secretaries for District 
Attorney offices; two magistrates to be allocated in 
accordance with G.S. 7A-171; and 34 deputy clerks. The 
General Assembly also authorized use of funds from the 
Indigent Persons Attorney Fee Fund for five assistant 
public defender positions during 1991-92 and five addi- 
tional positions during 1992-93. 

Appropriations 

The 1991 General Assembly appropriated $206,206,015 
to the Judicial Department for fiscal 1991-92 and 
$211,237,680 for fiscal 1992-93 (current operations, 
Chapter 689, Section 3; the 1992-93 appropriation is 
subject to revision by the General Assembly in the 1992 
Session). 



PART II 



COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION 
AND OPERATIONS 

• Historical Development of Court System 

• Present Court System 

• Organization and Operations in 1990-91 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



From its early colonial period North Carolina's judicial 
system has been the focus of periodic attention and 
adjustment. Through the years, there has been a repeated 
sequence of critical examination, proposals for reform, 
and finally the enactment of some reform measures. 

Colonial Period 

Around 1700 the royal governor established a General 
(or Supreme) Court for the colony, and a dispute 
developed over the appointment of associate justices. The 
Assembly conceded to the King the right to name the chief 
justice, but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the power 
to appoint the associate justices. Other controversies 
developed concerning the creation and jurisdiction of the 
courts and the tenure of judges. As for the latter, the 
Assembly's position was that judge appointments should 
be for good behavior as against the royal governor's 
decision for life appointment. State historians have noted 
that "the Assembly won its fight to establish courts and 
the judicial structure in the province was grounded on 
laws enacted by the legislature," which was more familiar 
with local conditions and needs (Lefler and Newsome, 
142). Nevertheless, North Carolina alternated between 
periods under legislatively enacted reforms (like good 
behavior tenure and the Court Bill of 1746, which 
contained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary court 
system) and periods of stalemate and anarchy after such 
enactments were nullified by royal authority. A more 
elaborate system was framed by legislation in 1767 to last 
five years. It was not renewed because of persisting 
disagreement between local and royal partisans. As a 
result, North Carolina was without higher courts until 
after Independence (Battle, 847). 

At the lower court level during the colonial period, 
judicial and county government administrative functions 
were combined in the authority of the justices of the 
peace, who were appointed by the royal governor. 

After the Revolution 

When North Carolina became a state in 1776, the 
colonial structure of the court system was retained largely 
intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the 
county courts which continued in use from about 1670 to 
1868 — were still held by the assembled justices of the 
peace in each county. The justices were appointed by the 
governor on the recommendation of the General Assem- 
bly, and they were paid out of fees charged litigants. On 
the lowest level of the judicial system, magistrate courts of 
limited jurisdiction were held by justices of the peace, 
singly or in pairs, while the county court was out of term. 

The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the General 
Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of Law 
and Equity. A court law enacted a year later authorized 
three superior court judges and created judicial districts. 
Sessions were supposed to be held in the court towns of 
each district twice a year, under a system much like the 
one that had expired in 1772. Just as there had been little 
distinction in terminology between General Court and 
Supreme Court prior to the Revolution, the terms 



Supreme Court and Superior Court were also inter- 
changeable during the period immediately following the 
Revolution. 

One of the most vexing governmental problems con- 
fronting the new State of North Carolina was its judiciary. 
"From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary caused 
complaint and demands for reform." (Lefler and New- 
some, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflictingjudge 
opinions, an insufficient number of judges, and lack of 
means for appeal were all cited as problems, although the 
greatest weakness was considered to be the lack of a real 
Supreme Court. 

In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court 
judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court of 
Conference to resolve cases which were disagreed on in 
the districts. This court was continued and made perma- 
nent by subsequent laws. The justices were required to put 
their opinions in writing to be delivered orally in court. 
The Court of Conference was changed in name to the 
Supreme Court in 1805 and authorized to hear appeals in 
1810. Because of the influence of the English legal system, 
however, there was still no conception of an alternative to 
judges sitting together to hear appeals from cases which 
they had themselves heard in the districts in panels of as 
few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 1818, though, an inde- 
pendent three-judge Supreme Court was created for 
review of cases decided at the Superior Court level. 

Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in 
each county were made mandatory in 1 806, and the State 
was divided into six circuits, or .ridings, where the six 
judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constituting a 
quorum as before. 

The County Court of justices of the peace continued 
during this period as the lowest court and as the agency of 
local government. 

After the Civil War 

Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it 
more democratic were made in 1 868. A primary holdover 
from the English legal arrangement — the distinction 
between law and equity proceedings — was abolished. 
The County Court's control of local government was 
abolished. Capital offenses were limited to murder, arson, 
burglary and rape, and the Constitution stated that the 
aim of punishment was "not only to satisfy justice, but 
also to reform the offender, and thus prevent crime. "The 
membership of the Supreme Court was raised to five, and 
the selection of the justices (including the designation of 
the chief justice) and superior court judges (raised in 
number to 1 2) was taken from the legislature and given to 
the voters, although vacancies were to be filled by the 
governor until the next election. The Court of Pleas and 
Quarter Sessions — The County Court of which three 
justices of the peace constituted a quorum — was 
eliminated. Its judicial responsibilities were divided be- 
tween the Superior Courts and the individual justices of 
the peace, who were retained as separate judicial officers 
with limited jurisdiction. 

Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 Con- 
stitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme Court 



Historical Development Of The North Carolina Court System, Continued 



justices to three and the Superior Court judges to nine. 
The General Assembly, instead of the governor, was given 
the power to appoint justices of the peace. Most of the 
modernizing changes in the post-Civil War Constitution, 
however, were left, and the judicial structure it had 
established continued without systematic modification 
through more than half of the 20th century. (A further 
constitutional amendment approved by the voters in 
November, 1888, returned the Supreme Court member- 
ship to five, and the number of superior court judges to 
twelve.) 

Before Reorganization 

A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising 
demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily 
encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time 
systematic court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. 
This accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the 
court system was most evident at the lower, local court 
level, where hundreds of courts specially created by 
statute operated with widely dissimilar structure and 
jurisdiction. 

By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent 
major reforms was begun, the court system in North 
Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme Court, 
with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior court, with 
general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statutory courts of 
limited jurisdiction; and (d) justices of the peace and 
mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction. 

At the superior court level, the State had been divided 
into 30 judicial districts and 21 solicitorial districts. The 
38 superior court judges (who rotated among the counties) 
and the district solicitors were paid by the State. The clerk 
of superior court, who was judge of probate and often 
also a juvenile judge, was a county official. There were 
specialized branches of superior court in some counties 
for matters like domestic relations and juvenile offenses. 

The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher of 
these local court levels were more than 180 recorder-type 
courts. Among these were the county recorder's courts, 
municipal recorder's courts and township recorder's 
courts; the general county courts, county criminal courts 
and special county courts; the domestic relations courts 
and the juvenile courts. Some of these had been estab- 
lished individually by special legislative acts more than a 
half-century earlier. Others had been created by general 
law across the State since 1919. About half were county 
courts and half were city or township courts. Jurisdiction 
included misdemeanors (mostly traffic offenses), prelimi- 
nary hearings and sometimes civil matters. The judges, 
who were usually part-time, were variously elected or 
appointed locally. 

At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and 
some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had similar 
criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties up to 
a S50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the peace also 
had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These court officials 
were compensated by the fees they exacted, and they 
provided their own facilities. 



Court Reorganization 

The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revision 
of the court system received the attention and support of 
Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who encouraged the 
leadership of the North Carolina Bar Association to 
pursue the matter. A Court Study Committee was 
established as an agency of the North Carolina Bar 
Association, and that Committee issued its report, calling 
for reorganization, at the end of 1958. A legislative 
Constitutional Commission, which worked with the 
Court Study Committee, finished its report early the next 
year. Both groups called for the structuring of an all- 
inclusive court system which would be directly state- 
operated, uniform in its organization throughout the 
State and centralized in its administration. The plan was 
for a simplified, streamlined and unified structure. A 
particularly important part of the proposal was the 
elimination of the local statutory courts and their replace- 
ment by a single District Court; the office of justice of the 
peace was to be abolished, and the newly fashioned 
position of magistrate would function within the District 
Court as a subordinate judicial office. 

Constitutional amendments were introduced in the 
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required 
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were 
reintroduced and approved at the 1961 session. The 
Constitutional amendments were approved by popular 
vote in 1962, and three years later the General Assembly 
enacted statutes to put the system into effect by stages. By 
the end of 1970 all of the counties and their courts had 
been incorporated into the new system, whose unitary 
nature was symbolized by the name, General Court of 
Justice. The designation of the entire 20th century judicial 
system as a single, statewide "court," with components for 
various types and levels of caseload, was adapted from 
North Carolina's earlier General Court, whose full venue 
extended to all of the 17th century counties. 



After Reorganization 

Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization 
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has continued. 
In 1 965, the Constitution was amended to provide for the 
creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It was 
amended again in 1972 to allow for the Supreme Court to 
censure or remove judges; implementing legislation pro- 
vides for such action upon the recommendation of the 
Judicial Standards Commission. As for the selection of 
judges, persistent efforts were made in the 1970's to obtain 
legislative approval of amendments to the State Constitu- 
tion, to appoint judges according to "merit" instead of 
electing them by popular, partisan vote. The proposed 
amendments received the backing of a majority of the 
members of each house, but not the three-fifths required 
to submit constitutional amendments to a vote of the 
people. Merit selection continues to be a significant issue 
before the General Assembly. 



10 



Historical Development Of The North Carolina Court System, Continued 

Major Sources 

Battle, Kemp P., An Address on the History of the Supreme Court 

(Delivered in 1888). 1 North Carolina Reports 835-876. 
Hinsdale, C. E., County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition. 
Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina: The 

History of a Southern State. 1963 Edition. 
Sanders, John L., Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A 

Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of 

Government. 
Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold, North Carolina Courts of Law 

and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular, 1973. 



11 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 

Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal 
(As of June 30, 1991) 



Recommendations 

from Judicial 

Standards Commission 



SUPREME 
COURT 

7 Justices 



Original Jurisdiction 
All felony cases; civil 
cases in excess of 
SI 0.000* 



SUPERIOR 
COURTS 

83 Judges 




Final Order of 

Utilities Commission in 

General Rate Cases 



COURT OF 
APPEALS 

12 Judges 



V 



(2) 



Decisions of 

Most Administrative 

Agencies 



Original Jurisdiction 
Probate and estates, 
special proceedings 
'condemnations, 
adoptions, partitions, 
foreclosures, etc.); in 
certain littering cases, 
may accept guilty pleas 
and enter judgments 



V 



criminal cases 
(for trial de novo) 



civil cases 



DISTRICT 
COURTS 

/ 79 Judges 



Clerks of Superior 
Court 

(100) 



Magistrates 

(659) 



N 



Decisions of Industrial 

Commission, State Bar, 

Property Tax Commission, 

Commissioner of Insurance, 

Dept. of Human Resources, 

Commissioner of Banks, 
Administrator of Savings and 

Loans, Governor's Waste 
Management Board, and the 
Utilities Commission (in cases 
other than general rate cases) 



Original Jurisdiction 
Misdemeanor cases not 
assigned to magistrates; 
probable cause hearings; 
civil cases $10,000* or 
less; juvenile proceedings; 
domestic relations; 
involuntary commitments 



Original Jurisdiction 
Accept certain misdemeanor 
guilty pleas and admissions 
of responsibility to infractions; 
worthless check misdemeanors 
$1,000 or less; small claims 
$2,000 or less; valuation of 
property in certain estate 
cases 



(1) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in cases involving constitutional questions, and cases in which there has 
been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may review Court of Appeals decisions in cases of significant public 
interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. 

(2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. 

(3) As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in first degree murder cases in which the defendent has been sentenced to death or 
life imprisonment, and in Utilities Commission genera) rate cases. In all other cases appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, 
the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the trial courts in cases of significant public interest, cases involving legal principles of major 
significance, where delay would cause substantial harm, or when the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full. 



*The district and superior courts have concurrent original jurisdiction in civil actions (G.S. 7A-242). However, the district court division is the 
proper division for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less; and the superior court division is the proper 
division for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (G.S. 7A-243). 



12 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution establ- 
ishes the General Court of Justice which "shall consti- 
ute a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction, 
)peration, and administration, and shall consist of an 
Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a 
District Court Division." 

The Appellate Division consists of the Supreme Court 
and the Court of Appeals. 

The Superior Court Division is composed of the 
superior courts, which hold sessions in the county seats 
of the 100 counties of the State. There are 60 superior 
court districts for electoral purposes only. For adminis- 
trative purposes, these are collapsed into 44 districts or 
'sets of districts." Some superior court districts comprise 
one county, some comprise two or more counties, and 
the more populous counties are divided into two or more 
districts for purposes of election of superior court judges. 
One or more superior court judges are elected for each of 
the superior court districts. A clerk of the superior court 
for each county is elected by the voters of the county. 

The District Court Division comprises the district 
courts. The General Assembly is authorized to divide the 
State into a convenient number of local court districts 
and prescribe where the district courts shall sit, but 
district court must sit in at least one place in each 
county. There are 37 district court districts, with each 
district composed of one or more counties. One or more 
district court judges are elected for each of the district 
court districts. The Constitution also provides that one 
or more magistrates "who shall be officers of the district 
court" shall be appointed in each county. 

The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains 
the term, "judicial department," and states that the 
"General Assembly shall have no power to deprive the 
judicial department of any power or jurisdiction that 
rightfully pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of 
the government, nor shall it establish or authorize any 
courts other than as permitted by this Article." The 
terms, "General Court of Justice" and "Judicial Depart- 
ment" are almost, but not quite, synonymous. It may be 
said that the Judicial Department encompasses all of the 
levels of court designated as the General Court of Justice 
plus all administrative and ancillary services within the 
Judicial Department. 

The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal between 
the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of 
courts are illustrated in the chart on the previous page. 

Criminal and Infraction Cases 

Trial of misdemeanor and infraction cases is within 
the original jurisdiction of the district courts. Worthless 
check cases under $1,000 may be tried by magistrates, 
who are also empowered to accept pleas of guilty and 
admissions of responsibility to certain misdemeanor and 
infraction offenses and impose fines in accordance with a 
schedule set by the Conference of Chief District Court 
Judges. Clerks of Superior Court may also accept guilty 
pleas and enter judgments in certain littering cases. Most 
trials of misdemeanors are by district court judges, who 



also hold preliminary, "probable cause" hearings in 
felony cases. Trial of felony cases is within the jurisdic- 
tion of the superior courts. 

Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the 
district court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by 
jury available at the district court level; appeal from the 
district courts' judgments in criminal cases is to the 
superior courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in 
life-imprisonment or death sentence first degree murder 
cases (which are appealed to the Supreme Court), 
appeals of right from the superior courts are to the Court 
of Appeals. 



Civil Cases 

The 100 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges 
of probate and have original jurisdiction in probate and 
estate matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction over 
such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, con- 
demnations under the authority of eminent domain, and 
foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the 
superior court. 

The district courts have original jurisdiction in juvenile 
proceedings, domestic relations cases, and petitions for 
involuntary commitment to a mental hospital, and are 
the "proper" courts for general civil cases where the 
amount in controversy is $10,000 or less. If the amount 
in controversy is $2,000 or less and the plaintiff in the 
case so requests, the chief district court judge may assign 
the case for initial hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates' 
decisions may be appealed to the district court. Trial by 
jury for civil cases is available in the district courts; 
appeal from the judgment of a district court in a civil 
case is to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. 

The superior courts are the "proper" courts for trial of 
general civil cases where the amount in controversy is 
more than $10,000. Appeals from decisions of most 
administrative agencies are first within the jurisdiction of 
the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in 
civil cases is to the Court of Appeals. 

The General Assembly, under G.S. 7A-37.1, has 
authorized statewide expansion of court-ordered, non- 
binding arbitration in certain civil actions where claims 
do not exceed $15,000. The parties' rights to trial de 
novo and jury trial are preserved. As of June 30, 1991, 
arbitration programs had been established in nine judi- 
cial districts. 

Statewide child custody and visitation mediation pro- 
grams are also being phased in upon authorization of the 
General Assembly (G.S. 7A-494). Unless the court grants 
a waiver, custody and visitation disputes must be referred 
to a mediator, who helps the parties reach a cooperative, 
nonadversarial resolution in the child's best interests. 
Any agreement reached is submitted to the court and, 
unless the court finds good reason for it not to, becomes 
a part of the court's order in the case. Issues not resolved 
by the mediation are reported by the mediator to the 
court. As of June 30, 1991, these mediation programs 
were operating in three judicial districts. 



13 



The Present Court System, Continued 



Administration 

The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general 
power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of 
the other courts of the General Court of Justice." (G.S. 
7A-32(b)). 

In addition to this grant of general supervisory power, 
the North Carolina General Statutes provide certain 
Judicial Department officials with specific powers and 
responsibilities for the operation of the court system. 
The Supreme Court has the responsibility for prescribing 
rules of practice and procedures for the appellate courts 
and for prescribing rules for the trial courts to supple- 
ment those prescribed by statute. The Chief Justice of 
the Supreme Court designates one of the judges of the 
Court of Appeals to be its Chief Judge, who in turn is 
responsible for scheduling the sessions of the Court of 
Appeals. 

The chart following illustrates specific trial court 
administrative responsibilities vested in Judicial Depart- 
ment officials by statute. The Chief Justice appoints the 
Director and Assistant Director of the Administrative 
Office of the Courts; the Assistant Director also serves as 
the Chief Justice's administrative assistant. The schedule 
of sessions of superior court in the 100 counties is set by 
the Supreme Court; assignment of the State's rotating 
superior court judges is the responsibility of the Chief 
Justice. Finally, the Chief Justice designates a chief 
district court judge for each of the State's 37 district 



court districts from among the elected district court 
judges of the respective districts. These judges have 
responsibilities for the scheduling of the district courts 
and magistrates' courts within their respective districts, 
along with other administrative responsibilities. 

The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible 
for direction of non-judicial, administrative and business 
affairs of the Judicial Department. Included among its 
functions are fiscal management, personnel services, 
information and statistical services, supervision of record 
keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, liaison with the 
legislative and executive departments of government, 
court facility evaluation, purchase and contract, educa- 
tion and training, coordination of the program for 
provision of legal counsel to indigent persons, juvenile 
probation and aftercare, guardian ad litem services, trial 
court administrator services, planning, and general ad- 
ministrative services. 

The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk 
for both the superior and the district courts. Day-to-day 
calendaring of civil cases is handled by the clerk of 
superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in 
some districts, under the supervision of the senior resi- 
dent superior court judge and chief district court judge. 
The criminal case calendars in both superior courts and 
district courts are set by the district attorney of the 
respective district. 



14 



Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts 




CHIEF JUSTICE 

and 

SUPREME COURT 



2 



Administrative 

Office of 

the Courts 



(37) District 
Attorneys 



(44) Senior Resident 

Judges; (100) Clerks 

of Superior Court 

SUPERIOR 
COURTS 




(37) Chief District 
Court Judges 

DISTRICT 
COURTS 



'The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other trial 
courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court judges, who 
rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice. 

2 The Director and the 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 from the judges elected in each of the 37 district court 
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 respective 
courts. 

6 In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping 
functions for both the superior court and the district court of the county. Magistrates, who serve under the 
supervision of the chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees 
submitted by the clerk of superior court. 



15 



THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
(As of June 30, 1991) 



Chief Justice 
JAMES G. EXUM, JR. 



Associate Justices 



LOUIS B. MEYER 
BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR. 
HARRY C. MARTIN 



HENRY E. FRYE 

JOHN WEBB 

WILLIS P. WHICHARD 



Retired Chief Justices 

WILLIAM H. BOBBITT 

SUSIE SHARP 



Retired Justices 



I. BEVERLY LAKE 
J. FRANK HUSKINS 



DAVID M. BRITT 



Clerk 
Christie Speir Price 



Librarian 
Louise H. Stafford 




Chief Justice Exum 



16 



THE SUPREME COURT 



At the apex of the North Carolina court system is the 
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to 
consider and decide questions of law presented in civil 
and criminal cases on appeal. The Chief Justice and six 
associate justices are elected to eight-year terms by the 
voters of the State. The Court sits only en banc, that is, 
all members sitting on each case. 

Jurisdiction 

The only original case jurisdiction exercised by the 
Supreme Court is in the censure and removal of judges 
upon the non-binding recommendations of the Judicial 
Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jurisdic- 
tion includes: 

- cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals 
(cases involving substantial constitutional ques- 
tions and cases in which there has been dissent in 
the Court of Appeals); 

- cases on appeal by right from the Utilities Com- 
mission (cases involving final order or decision in a 
general rate matter); 

- criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior 
courts (first degree murder cases in which the 
defendant has been sentenced to death or life 
imprisonment); and 

- cases in which review has been granted in the 
Supreme Court's discretion. 

Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly 
from the trial courts may be granted when delay would 
likely cause substantial harm or when the workload of 
the Appellate Division is such that the expeditious 
administration of justice requires it. However, most 
appeals are heard only after review by the Court of 
Appeals. 

Administration 

The Supreme Court has general power to supervise 
and control the proceedings of the other courts of the 
General Court of Justice. The Court has specific power 
to prescribe the rules of practice and procedure for the 
trial court divisions, consistent with any rules enacted by 
the General Assembly. The schedule of superior court 
sessions in the 100 counties is approved yearly by the 
Supreme Court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court, the 
Librarian of the Supreme Court Library, and the Appel- 
late Division Reporter are appointed by the Supreme 
Court. 



The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and 
the Assistant Director, who serve at the pleasure of the 
Chief Justice. He also designates a Chief Judge from 
among the judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief 
District Court Judge from among the district court 
judges in each of the State's 37 district court districts. He 
assigns superior court judges, who regularly rotate from 
district to district, to the scheduled sessions of superior 
court in the 100 counties, and he is also empowered to 
transfer district court judges to other districts for tem- 
porary or specialized duty. The Chief Justice appoints 
three of the seven members of the Judicial Standards 
Commission — a judge of the Court of Appeals who 
serves as the Commission's chairman, one superior court 
judge and one district court judge. The Chief Justice also 
appoints six of the 24 voting members of the North 
Carolina Courts Commission: one associate justice of 
the Supreme Court, one Court of Appeals judge, two 
superior court judges, and two district court judges. The 
Chief Justice also appoints the Appellate Defender, and 
the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of 
Administrative Hearings. 



Expenses of the Court, 1990-91 

Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 
1990-91 fiscal year amounted to $2,909,823. Expendi- 
tures for the Supreme Court during 1990-91 constituted 
1 .4% of all General Fund expenditures for the operation 
of the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. 



Case Data, 1990-91 

A total of 345 appealed cases were before the Supreme 
Court during the fiscal year, 156 that were pending on 
July 1, 1990, plus 189 cases filed through June 30, 1991. 
A total of 173 of these cases were disposed of, leaving 
172 cases pending on June 30, 1991. 

A total of 578 petitions (requests to appeal) were 
before the Court during the 1990-91 year, with 498 
disposed during the year and 80 pending as of June 30, 
1991. The Court granted 53 petitions for review during 
1990-91 compared to 106 for 1989-90. 

More detailed data on the Court's workload are 
presented on the following pages. 



17 



SUPREME COURT CASELOAD INVENTORY 
July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Petitions for Review 

Civil domestic 

Juvenile 

Other civil 

Criminal 

Administrative agency decision 

Total Petitions for Review 

Appeals 

Civil domestic 

Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals 

Juvenile 

Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals 

Other civil 

Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals 

Criminal, defendant sentenced to death 

Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment 

Other criminal 

Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals 

Administrative agency decision 
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of 
administrative agency decision 

Total Appeals 

Other Proceedings 

Rule 16(b) additional issues re dissent 

Requests for advisory opinion 

Motions 

Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear 

Total Other Proceedings 



Pending 






Pending 


7/1/90 


Filed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


4 


26 


24 


6 


1 


5 


5 


1 


58 


247 


246 


59 


16 


191 


194 


13 


7 


23 


29 


1 



86 



492 



498 



80 



2 



5 

2 


6 
1 


1 
1 




1 


2 



1 



1 
1 


32 
29 


40 
35 


35 

34 


37 
30 


35 


25 


21 


39 


30 


35 


33 


32 


7 

12 


22 
9 


15 
13 


14 
8 


6 


8 


8 


6 


2 


6 


6 


2 


156 


189 


173 


172 


2 





17 



554 

5 


8 



554 

4 


11 



1 



576 



566 



12 



18 



APPEALS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT 



July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 



Other Civil 
39.7% (75) 



Juvenile 
1.1% (2) 



Other Criminal 
16.4% (31) 



Criminal-Death 
13.2% (25) 




Criminal-Life 
18.5% (35) 



Admin. Agency 
7.4% (14) 



Civil Domestic 

3.7% (7) 



PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT 



July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Other Civil 
50.2% (247) 



Juvenile 
1.0% (5) 




Criminal 

38.8% (191) 



Civil Domestic 
Admin. Agency 5.3% (26) 
4.7% (23) 



19 



SUPREME COURT CASELOAD TYPES 

by Superior Court Division and District 

July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Judicial 


Superior Court 


Total 


Death 


Life 


Other 


Civil 


Other 


Cases 


Division 


District 


Cases 


Cases 


Cases 


Criminal 


Cases 


Cases 


Disposed 


I 


1 


7 


3 


1 


2 


1 





2 




2 


5 


1 


2 


2 








2 




3A 


7 


1 


1 


2 


3 





3 




3B 


10 





2 


2 


6 





5 




4A 


s 


4 


3 


1 








2 




4B 


b 


2 


1 


3 








3 




5 


13 


3 


5 


2 


3 





4 




6A 


6 


4 





2 








1 




6B 


3 


1 


1 





1 





1 




7A 


2 


1 








I 





1 




7B-C 


7 


I 


1 





5 





3 




8A 


3 





3 











1 




8B 


4 





1 


1 


2 





4 


SUBTOTAL 




81 


21 


21 


17 


22 





32 


II 


9 


7 


1 


1 


1 


4 





5 




10 


53 


7 


3 


1 


15 


27 


27 




11 


13 


1 


3 


2 


7 





3 




12 


12 


3 


I 


4 


4 





8 




13 


8 


2 


3 


1 


2 





3 




14 


10 


2 





2 


4 


2 


3 




15A 


11 


2 


3 


1 


5 





4 




15B 


10 





2 


2 


5 


1 


4 




16A 


3 


1 








2 





1 




16B 


13 


5 


5 


3 








4 


SUBTOTAL 




140 


24 


21 


17 


48 


30 


62 


III 


17A 


5 


2 


2 


1 








3 




17B 


5 


1 


1 


1 


2 





2 




18 


22 


2 


7 


4 


9 





9 




19A 


1 


1 














1 




19B 


4 


1 








3 





2 




19C 


3 





2 





1 





1 




20A 


X 


2 


1 





5 





4 




20 B 


1 


1 














1 




21 


29 


1 


5 


4 


18 


1 


13 




22 


9 


5 


1 





3 





6 




23 


5 


1 


3 


1 








3 


SUBTOTAL 




92 


17 


22 


11 


41 


1 


45 


IV 


24 


6 


1 








5 










25 A 


5 


2 


I 





2 





2 




25B 


5 





I 


2 


2 





1 




26 


27 


4 


7 


2 


14 





8 




27A 


5 


1 


1 





3 





4 




27B 


2 





1 


1 













28 


15 


2 


1 





12 





8 




29 


14 


2 


6 


3 


3 





9 




30A 


7 


2 


1 


1 


3 





1 




30B 


2 








1 


1 





I 


SUBTOTAL 




88 


14 


19 


10 


45 





34 



TOTALS 401 76 83 55 156 31 173 

NOTE: Includes life & death sentence cases awaiting Record on Appeal and not yet formally docketed. 



20 



SUBMISSION OF CASES REACHING DECISION STAGE IN SUPREME COURT 

July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Cases Argued 

Civil Domestic 

Juvenile 

Other Civil 

Criminal (death sentence) 

Criminal (life sentence) 

Other Criminal 

Administrative Agency Decision 

Total cases argued 

Submissions Without Argument 

By motion of the parties (Appellate Rule 30 (d)) 
By order of the Court (Appellate Rule 30 (f)) 

Total submissions without argument 

Total Cases Reaching Decision Stage 



6 

1 
70 
26 
30 
27 
13 

173 



I 
1 

2 
175 



DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS BY THE SUPREME COURT 

July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Granted* 


Denied 


1 


22 





5 


37 


207 


10 


171 


5 


23 


53 


428 



Petitions for Review 

Civil Domestic 

Juvenile 

Other Civil 

Criminal 

Administrative Agency Decision 

Total Petitions for Review 

Other Proceedings 

Rule 16(b) — Additional Issues 

Advisory Opinion 

Motions 

Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear 

Total Other Proceedings 

*"Granted" includes orders allowing relief without accepting the case as a full appeal. 



Dismissed/ 
Withdrawn 

1 



2 

13 

1 

17 



Total 
Disposed 

24 

5 

246 

194 

29 

498 



8 



554 

4 



566 



21 



DISPOSITION OF SUPREME COURT APPEALS 
July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Signed Opinions 











Reversed 




Total 


Case Types 


Affirmed 


Modified 


Reversed 


Remanded 


Remanded 


Disposed 


Civil domestic 








I 


3 





4 


Juvenile 




















Other civil 


11 


2 


6 


15 


2 


36 


Criminal (death sentence) 


2 











19 


21 


Criminal (life sentence) 


25 











6 


31 


Other criminal 


7 


1 


4 


4 


1 


17 


Administrative agency decision 


3 








6 





9 



Totals 



48 



11 



28 



28 



118 



Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Opinions 











Reversed 




Total 


Case Types 


Affirmed 


Modified 


Reversed 


Remanded 


Remanded 


Disposed 


Civil domestic 


2 














2 


Juvenile 




















Other civil 


20 





3 


3 


1 


27 


Criminal (death sentence) 




















Criminal (life sentence) 


1 














1 


Other criminal 


6 











1 


7 


Administrative agency decision 


4 














4 



Totals 



33 







41 



Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals by Dismissal or Withdrawal 

Case Types 



Dismissed or 
Withdrawn 



Civil domestic 

Juvenile 

Other civil 

Criminal (death sentence) 

Criminal (life sentence) 

Other criminal 

Administrative agency decision 

Totals 



1 
I 

6 

I 

4 
I 

14 



22 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF APPEALS 
IN THE SUPREME COURT 

July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 



Dismissed/Withdrawn 
8.1% (14) 



Signed Opinions 
68.2% (118) 




Per Curiam Opinions 
23.7% (41) 



TYPE OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW 
IN THE SUPREME COURT 

July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Dismissed/Withdrawn 
3.4% (17) 



Granted 
10.6% (53) 




Denied 
85.9% (428) 



23 



250 



200 



150 



Number 

of 

Cases 



100 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 



Appeals Docketed and Disposed During the Years 1985-86 -- 1990-91 



50 




1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 

H Appeals Docketed CJ Appeals Disposed 



24 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 



Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years 1985-86 -- 1990-91 



800 



700 



600 



500 



■lumber 

of 400 
Cases 



300 



200 



100 




1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 

I Petitions Docketed LJ Petitions Allowed 



1990-91 



25 



SUPREME COURT PROCESSING TIME FOR DISPOSED CASES 

(Total time in days from docketing to decision) 

July 1, 1990 — June 30, 1991 



Number (Days) (Days) 
of Cases Median Mean 



Civil domestic 

Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals 

Juvenile 

Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals 

Other civil 

Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals 

Criminal, defendant sentenced to death 

Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment 

Other criminal 

Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals 

Administrative agency decision 

Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative 
agency decision 

Total appeals 



6 


250 


251 


1 


309 


309 


1 


121 


121 











35 


226 


249 


34 


256 


304 


21 


483 


557 


33 


309 


349 


15 


210 


215 


13 


273 


346 


8 


287 


372 


6 


279 


265 


73 


287 


327 



26 



THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA 
(As of June 30, 1991) 



Chief Judge 
R. A. HEDRICK 



GERALD ARNOLD 
HUGH A. WELLS 
CLIFTON E. JOHNSON 
EUGENE H. PHILLIPS 
SIDNEYS. EAGLES, JR. 
SARAH PARKER 



Judges 



JACK COZORT 

ROBERT F. ORR 

K. EDWARD GREENE 

JOHN B. LEWIS, JR. 

JAMES A. WYNN,JR. 



FRANK M. PARKER 
EDWARD B. CLARK 
ROBERT M. MARTIN 



Retired Judges 



CECIL J. HILL 
E. MAURICE BRASWELL 



Clerk 
FRANCIS E. DAIL 



Assistant Clerk 
JOHN H. CONNELL 



27 



THE COURT OF APPEALS 



The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's 
intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the 
appeals originating from the State's trial courts. The 
Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other 
locations in the State as authorized by the Supreme 
Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regular 
or frequent. Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected 
by popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for 
the Court is designated by the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court and serves in that capacity at the pleasure 
of the Chief Justice. 

Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the 
Chief Judge responsible for assigning members of the 
Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each 
judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal 
number of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge 
presides over the panel of which he or she is a member 
and designates a presiding judge for the other panels. 

One member of the Court of Appeals, designated by 
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serves as 
chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission. 



cases). Appeals from the decisions of other administra- 
tive agencies lie first within the jurisdiction of the 
superior courts. 

In the event of a recommendation from the Judicial 
Standards Commission to censure or remove from office 
a justice of the Supreme Court, the non-binding recom- 
mendation would be considered by the Chief Judge and 
the six judges next senior in service on the Court of 
Appeals (excluding the judge who serves as the Commis- 
sion's chair). Such seven-member panel would have sole 
jurisdiction to act upon the Commission's recommen- 
dation. 



Expenses of the Court, 1990-91 

Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during 
the 1990-91 fiscal year totaled $3,778,530. Expenditures 
for the Court of Appeals during 1990-91 amounted to 
1.8% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of 
the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. 



Jurisdiction 

The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals 
consists of cases appealed from the trial courts. The 
Court also hears appeals directly from the Industrial 
Commission, along with appeals from certain final orders 
or decisions of the North Carolina State Bar, the Com- 
missioner of Insurance, the Department of Human Re- 
sources, the Commissioner of Banks, the Administrator 
of Savings and Loans, the Governor's Waste Manage- 
ment Board, the Property Tax Commission, and the 
Utilities Commission (in cases other than general rate 



Case Data, 1990-91 

A total of 1,325 appealed cases were filed before the 
Court of Appeals during the period July 1, 1990 - June 
30, 1991. A total of 1,414 cases were disposed of during 
the same period. During 1990-91, a total of 415 petitions 
and 1,295 motions were filed before the Court of 
Appeals. 

Further detail on the workload of the Court of 
Appeals is shown in the table and graph on the following 
pages. 



28 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 



July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



Cases on Appeal 



Filings 



Dispositions 



Civil cases appealed from district courts 
Civil cases appealed from superior courts 
Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies 
Criminal cases appealed from superior courts 



238 

581 

72 

434 



Totals 



1325 



1,414 



Petitions 



Allowed 

Denied 

Remanded 



174 

241 





Totals 



415 



415 



Motions 



Allowed 

Denied 

Remanded 



905 

390 





Totals 



Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions, and Motions 



1,295 



3,035 



1,295 
3,124 



MANNER OF CASE DISPOSITIONS -- COURT OF APPEALS 



July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



Cases Disposed by Written Opinion 







Cases Affirmed 






Cases 


Cases 


In Part, Reversed 


Other Cases 


Total Cases 


Affirmed 


Reversed 


In Part 


Disposed 


Disposed 



962 



199 



102 



151 



1,414 



2^ 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

1985-86 -- 1990-91 



2.500 



2,000 



1,500 



Number 

of 
Cases 



1,000 



500 




1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 

H Filings LJ Dispositions 



Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed cases and petitions (but not motions) filed in the Court of Appeals. 



30 



^ On 

©2 



u 



o 
en 

.2 1 

« I— 5 

a° 

P* 00 

in M 

* ^ 

2 Q 

r^ 1 




U 



c c 

E 9 



5U 

■So 
5 ^. 



1 = 
13 



©H 



31 



5 
x. 

s 

W On 

• — o 
U en 

ts a 

.9 8 

o 
- 

u 



© 




a. 


-a 

c 

03 


-a 
1 


o 

fa 




u 
y 

X 


< 


CO 

Q 




u 


CO 


On 


o 




(/I 










3 
O 


■c 


CO 


u 




c 


CO 


u 


m 






Q 


•c 


o 




8 


13 


CO 

Q 


■c 

to 




O 


o 


t! 


u 




1 


3 


3 
O 

r > 


3 


^^ 




CO 




o 


OS 


r ) 


g 


o 


U 


On 


•c 


CL, 


'B 


o 


' 


CO 


05 

05 

tS) 

•c 

D. 

E 

o 


Q 


•c 

CO 


ha 

u 


03 

•c 
o 


8 a 

C <u 
a- t3 


E 
o 




CO 


e 
o 



> 




to 
o 


o 


-o 


<u 




•fi < 

eg On 

b ^ 


E 


> 

o 


co 
O 


3 
O 


•c 

to 


00 

< 


u 

PQ 


is 

CO 


u 


Q 


■a 


CO 

-n 


T3 


o 

T 


rt 


c 


£ 


3 




HI 


u 




Cfl 


o 


O 


< 





P 


3 




cn 


(J 

o 


CO 


u 

u 

CO 


On 


CO 

U 


OO 

n 


1 

CO 


-a 




c 

CO 

5 


jj 


C 


£ 




s 


o 


„ 


( ) 


3 


£ 


ft 




ON 


U 



^2 



+■> 

.a 

+^ 

5 
is 

o r 1 

u .. 

0> o 
</5 en 

© (D 

cd o 
c - 

•mm & 

o 

u 
U 



o 




w 



c c 
u . — 

E P 



21 

o Z 

2 >, 



©s- 



33 



JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 



(As of June 30, 1991) 



FIRST DIVISION 

District 

1 *J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City 

Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City 

2 *William C. Griffin, Jr., Williamston 

3A *David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville 

W. Russell Duke, Jr., Greenville 

3B * Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City 

4A * Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville 

4B *James R. Strickland, Jacksonville 

5 *Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington 
Ernest B. Fullwood, Wilmington 
Gary E. Trawick, Burgaw 

6A *Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids 

6B *Cy Anthony Grant, Sr., Windsor 

7A *Quentin T. Sumner, Rocky Mount 

7B G. K. Butterfield, Jr., Wilson 
7C *Frank R. Brown, Tarboro 

8A *James D. Llewellyn, Kinston 

8B *Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro 

SECOND DIVISION 

9 *Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg 
Henry W. Hight, Jr., Henderson 

10A George R. Greene, Raleigh 
10B *Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh 

Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh 
IOC Narley L. Cashwell, Raleigh 
10D Donald W. Stephens, Raleigh 

1 1 *Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn 

Knox V. Jenkins, Four Oaks 

12A Jack A. Thompson, Fayetteville 
12B Gregory A. Weeks, Fayetteville 
12C *Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville 
E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville 

13 *Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 
William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville 

14A Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., Durham 
14B *Anthony M. Brannon, Durham 
J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham 
A. Leon Stanback, Jr., Durham 

15A *J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington 

15B *F. Gordon Battle, Hillsborough 

16A *B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg 

16B * Joe Freeman Britt, Lumberton 
Dexter Brooks, Pembroke 



THIRD DIVISION 
District 

17A *Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., Wentworth 
Peter M. McHugh, Wentworth 

17B * James M. Long, Pilot Mountain 

18A W. Steven Allen, Sr., Greensboro 
18B Howard R. Greeson, Jr., Greensboro 

18C *W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro 

18D Thomas W. Ross, Greensboro 

18E Joseph R. John, Greensboro 

19A *James C. Davis, Concord 

I9B *Russell G. Walker, Jr., Asheboro 

19C *Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer 

20A *F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro 

James M. Webb, Southern Pines 

20B *William H. Helms, Monroe 

21 A William Z. Wood, Jr., Winston-Salem 

21 B *Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem 

21 C William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem 

21 D James A. Beaty, Jr., Winston-Salem 

22 *Preston Cornelius, Mooresville 

Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville 

23 *Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro 

FOURTH DIVISION 

24 *Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone 

25A *Claude S. Sitton, Morganton 
Beverly T. Beal, Lenoir 

25B *Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 

26A Marcus L. Johnson, Charlotte 

Shirley L. Fulton, Charlotte 
26B Julia V. Jones, Charlotte 

Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte 
26C * Robert M. Burroughs, Sr., Charlotte 

Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte 

27A *Robert W. Kirby, Gastonia 
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia 

27B *John Mull Gardner, Shelby 

28 * Robert D. Lewis, Asheville 

C. Walter Allen, Asheville 

29 *Zoro J. Guice, Rutherfordton 

Loto Greenlee Caviness, Marion 

30A *James U. Downs, Franklin 
30B *Janet M. Hyatt, Waynesville 



"Senior Resident Superior Court Judge of the district or "set of districts" 

34 



SPECIAL JUDGE OF SUPERIOR COURT 

Marvin K. Gray, Charlotte 



EMERGENCY AND RETIRED/RECALLED JUDGES 
OF SUPERIOR COURT 

(As of June 30, 1991) 

James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh 

George M. Fountain, Tarboro 

John R. Friday, Lincolnton 

Peter W. Hairston, Advance 

Darius B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville 

Hamilton H. Hobgood, Louisburg 

Harvey A. Lupton, Winston-Salem 

John D. McConnell, Pinehurst 

Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton 

D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington 
Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton 

L. Bradford Tillery, Wilmington 
Edward K. Washington, High Point 



The Conference of Superior Court Judges 

(Executive Committee as of June 30, 1991) 

Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown, President 

Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro, President- Elect 

F. Gordon Battle, Hillsborough, Vice-President 

E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville, Secretary-Treasurer 

J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City, Immediate Past- President 

Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg, and 
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte, Ex Officio 

Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington, and 

Claude S. Sitton, Morganton, 

Additional Executive Committee Members 




Judge Giles R. Clark 
35 



THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



North Carolina's superior courts are the general juris- 
diction trial courts for the state. In 1990-91, there were 
82 "resident" superior court judges elected by Statewide 
ballot to office for eight-year terms in the 60 superior 
court districts. In addition, one "special" superior court 
judge has been appointed by the Governor. 

Jurisdiction 

The superior court has original jurisdiction in all 
felony cases and in those misdemeanor cases specified 
under G.S. 7A-271. (Most misdemeanors are tried first 
in the district court, from which conviction may be 
appealed to the superior court for trial de novo by a jury. 
No trial by jury is available for criminal cases in district 
court.) The superior court is the proper court for the trial 
of civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds 
SI 0,000, and it has jurisdiction over appeals from admin- 
istrative agencies except for county game commissions, 
from which appeals are heard in district court, and from 
the Industrial Commission, the Commissioner of Insur- 
ance, the North Carolina State Bar, the Property Tax 
Commission, the Department of Human Resources, the 
Commissioner of Banks, the Administrator of Savings 
and Loans, the Governor's Waste Management Board, 
and the Utilities Commission. Appeals from these agen- 
cies lie directly to the North Carolina Court of Appeals 
(except for Utilities Commission general rate cases, 
which go directly to the Supreme Court). Regardless of 
the amount in controversy, the original civil jurisdiction 
of the superior court does not include domestic relations 
cases, which are heard in the district court, or probate 
and estates matters and certain special proceedings 
heard first by the clerk of superior court. Rulings of the 
clerk are within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior 
court. 

Administration 

The 100 counties in North Carolina are grouped into 
60 superior court districts. Some superior court districts 
comprise one county; some comprise two or more 
counties; and the more populous counties are divided 
among a "set of districts," composed of two or more 
districts created for purposes of election of superior 
court judges. Each district has at least one resident 
superior court judge who has certain administrative 
responsibilities for his or her home district, such as 
providing for civil case calendaring procedures. (Crimi- 
nal case calendars are prepared by the district attorneys.) 



In districts or sets of districts with more than one 
resident superior court judge, the judge senior in service 
on the superior court bench exercises these supervisory 
powers. 

The superior court districts are grouped into four 
divisions for the rotation of superior court judges, as 
shown on the preceding superior court district map. 
Within the division, resident superior court judges are 
required to rotate among the superior court districts and 
hold court for at least six months in each, then move on 
to their next assignment. The special superior court 
judge may be assigned to hold court in any of the 100 
counties. Assignments of all superior court judges are 
made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under 
the Constitution of North Carolina, at least two sessions 
(of one week each) of superior court are held annually in 
each of the 100 counties. The vast majority of counties 
have more than the constitutional minimum of two 
weeks of superior court annually. Many larger counties 
have superior court sessions about every week in the 
year. 

Expenditures 

A total of $19,102,345 was expended on the operations 
of the superior courts during the 1990-91 fiscal year. This 
included the salaries and travel expenses for the 83 
superior court judges, and salaries and expenses for trial 
court administrators, court reporters and secretarial 
staff for superior court judges. Expenditures for the 
superior courts amounted to 9.2% of all General Fund 
expenditures for operation of the entire Judicial Depart- 
ment during the 1990-91 fiscal year. 

Caseload 

Including both civil and criminal cases, 135,419 cases 
were filed in the superior courts during 1990-91, an 
increase of 7,204 cases (5.6%) from the total of 128,215 
cases that were filed in 1989-90. There were increases in 
filings in all case categories: civil cases (4.6%), felony 
cases (5.9%), and misdemeanor cases (5.7%). 

Superior court case dispositions increased from 
117,787 in 1989-90 to 129,302 in 1990-91. Dispositions in 
all case types increased: civil cases (10.0%), felony cases 
(9.2%), and misdemeanor cases (10.6%). 

More detailed information on the flow of cases 
through the superior courts is included in Part IV of this 
Report. 



36 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 

(As of June 30, 1991) 



District 



6A 



6B 



Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City 
John R. Parker, Manteo 
Janice M. Cole, Hertford 

Hallett S. Ward, Washington 
Samuel G. Grimes, Washington 
James W. Hardison, Williamston 

E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville 

David A. Leech, Greenville 

Willie L. Lumpkin, III, Morehead City 

James E. Martin, Grifton 

James E. Ragan, III, Oriental 

George L. Wainwright, Morehead City 

Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill 
William M. Cameron, Jr., Jacksonville 
Wayne G. Kimble, Jr., Jacksonville 
Leonard W. Thagard, Clinton 
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville 
Paul A. Hardison, Jacksonville 

Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington 
Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington 
Charles E. Rice, III, Wilmington 
Elton Glenn Tucker, Wilmington 
John W. Smith, II, Wilmington 
W. Allen Cobb, Jr., Wilmington 

Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck 

Alfred W. Kwasikpui, Jackson 
Thomas R. Newbern, Aulander 

George Britt, Tarboro 

Allen W. Harrell, Wilson 

M. Alexander Biggs, Jr., Rocky Mount 

Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson 

Sarah F. Patterson, Rocky Mount 

Joseph J. Harper, Jr., Tarboro 

J. Patrick Exum, Kinston 
Kenneth R. Ellis, Goldsboro 
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston 
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro 
Joseph E. Setzer, Jr., Goldsboro 

Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford 
H. Weldon Lloyd, Jr., Henderson 
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton 
Charles W. Wilkinson, Jr., Oxford 



District 

10 George F. Bason, Raleigh 
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh 
William A. Creech, Raleigh 
James R. Fullwood, Raleigh 
Joyce A. Hamilton, Raleigh 
Jerry W. Leonard, Raleigh 
Fred M. Morelock, Raleigh 
Louis W. Payne, Jr., Raleigh 
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh 
Donald W. Overby, Raleigh 
Anne B. Salisbury, Raleigh 

1 1 William A. Christian, Sanford 
Samuel S. Stephenson, Angier 
Edward H. McCormick, Lillington 
O. Henry Willis, Jr., Dunn 
Tyson Y. Dobson, Jr., Smithfield 
Albert A. Corbett, Jr., Smithfield 

12 Sol G. Cherry, Fayetteville 
John S. Hair, Jr., Fayetteville 
James F. Ammons, Jr., Fayetteville 
A. Elizabeth Keever, Fayetteville 
Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Fayetteville 
Andrew R. Dempster, Fayetteville 

13 D. Jack Hooks, Jr., Whiteville 
Jerry A. Jolly, Tabor City 
David G. Wall, Elizabethtown 
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Jr., Bolivia 

14 Kenneth C. Titus, Durham 
Richard Chaney, Durham 
William Y. Manson, Durham 
Carolyn D. Johnson, Durham 
David Q. LaBarre, Durham 

15A James K. Washburn, Burlington 
Spencer B. Ennis, Burlington 
Ernest J. Harviel, Burlington 

15B Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill 
Lowry M. Betts, Pittsboro 
Stanley S. Peele, Chapel Hill 

16A Warren L. Pate, Raeford 

William C. Mcllwain, III, Wagram 

16B Charles G. McLean, Lumberton 
Robert F. Floyd, Jr., Fairmont 
J. Stanley Carmical, Lumberton 
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton 
Gary L. Locklear, Pembroke 



*The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



37 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1991) 



District 

17A Robert R. Blackwell, Yanceyville 
Philip W. Allen, Yanceyville 
Janeice B. Tindal. Reidsville 

17B Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy 
Clarence W. Carter, King 
Otis M. Oliver, Mount Airy 

18 J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro 
Sherry F. Alloway, Greensboro 
Donald L. Boone, High Point 
William L. Daisy, Greensboro 
Edmund Lowe, High Point 
Lawrence C. McSwain, Greensboro 
Lhomas G. Foster, Jr., Greensboro 
William A. Vaden, Greensboro 
Joseph E. Turner, Greensboro 
Ben D. Haines, Greensboro 

19A Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord 

Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis 

19B William M. Neely, Asheboro 
Richard M. Toomes, Asheboro 
Vance B. Long, Asheboro 

19C Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury 
Anna Mills Wagoner, Salisbury 

20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro 
Michael E. Beale, Pinehurst 
Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle 
Kenneth W. Honeycutt, Monroe 
Tanya T. Wallace, Rockingham 
Susan C. Taylor, Albemarle 

21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem 
Loretta C. Biggs, Kernersville 
James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem 
Roland H. Hayes, Winston-Salem 
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem 
William B. Reingold, Winston-Salem 
Margaret L. Sharpe, Winston-Salem 

22 Robert W. Johnson, Statesville 
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville 
George T. Fuller, Lexington 
Kimberly T. Harbinson, Taylorsville 
James M. Honeycutt, Lexington 
Jessie A. Conley, Statesville 

23 Samuel L. Osborne, Wilkesboro 
Edgar B. Gregory, Wilkesboro 
Michael E. Helms, Wilkesboro 



District 

24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland 

R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk 

25 L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory 
Ronald E. Bogle, Hickory 
Robert E. Hodges, Morganton 
Jonathan L. Jones, Valdese 
Timothy S. Kincaid, Newton 
Nancy L. Einstein, Lenoir 
Robert M. Brady, Lenoir 

26 James E. Lanning, Charlotte 
Marilyn R. Bissell, Charlotte 
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte 
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte 
Richard A. Elkins, Charlotte 
H. Brent McKnight, Charlotte 
Resa L. Harris, Charlotte 
Jane V. Harper, Charlotte 
William G. Jones, Charlotte 

H. William Constangy, Jr., Charlotte 
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte 
Richard D. Boner, Charlotte 
Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte 

27A Larry B. Langson, Gastonia 
Daniel J. Walton, Gastonia 
Harley B. Gaston, Jr., Belmont 
Timothy L. Patti, Gastonia 
Catherine C. Stevens, Gastonia 

27B George W. Hamrick, Shelby 

James T. Bowen, III, Lincolnton 
J. Keaton Fonvielle, Shelby 
James W. Morgan, Shelby 

28 Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden 
Gary S. Cash, Fletcher 
Rebecca B. Knight, Asheville 
Peter L. Roda, Asheville 
Shirley H. Brown, Asheville 

29 Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville 
Steven F. Franks, Hendersonville 
Robert S. Cilley, Brevard 
Donald F. Coats, Marion 

30 John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy 
Steven J. Bryant, Bryson City 
Danny E. Davis, Waynesville 



The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



38 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES 



The Association of District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1991) 

L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory, President 

Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill, Vice-President 

Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy, Secretary-Treasurer 

Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston 

Warren L. Pate, Raeford 

A. Elizabeth Keever, Fayetteville 

Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City 

Lawrence C. McSwain, Greensboro 

L. Stanly Brown, Charlotte 

Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Fayetteville 

Additional Executive Committee Members 




Judge L. Oliver Noble 



39 



THE DISTRICT COURTS 



North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with 
original jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of the 
cases handled by the State's court system. There were 
179 district court judges serving in 37 district court 
districts during 1990-9 1 . These judges are elected to four- 
year terms by the voters of their respective districts. 

A total of 659 magistrate positions were authorized as 
of June 30. 1991. Of this number, about 60 positions 
were specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed 
by the senior resident superior court judge from nomina- 
tions submitted by the clerk of superior court of their 
county, and they are supervised by the chief district 
court judge of their district. 

Jurisdiction 

The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtual- 
ly all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in 
felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary com- 
mitments and recommitments to mental health hospitals, 
and domestic relations cases. Effective September 1, 
1986. the General Assembly decriminalized many minor 
traffic offenses. Such offenses, previously charged as 
misdemeanors, are now- "infractions," defined as non- 
criminal violations of law not punishable by imprison- 
ment. The district court division has original jurisdiction 
for all infraction cases. The district courts have con- 
current jurisdiction with the superior courts in general 
civil cases, but the district courts are the proper courts 
for the trial of civil cases where the amount in contro- 
versy is SI 0,000 or less. Upon the plaintiffs request, a 
civil case in which the amount in controversy is $2,000 or 
less, may be designated a "small claims" case and 
assigned by the chief district court judge to a magistrate 
for hearing. Magistrates are empowered to try worthless 
check criminal cases as directed by the chief district 
court judge when the value of the check does not exceed 
SI, 000. In addition, they may accept written appearances, 
waivers of trial, and pleas of guilty in certain littering 
cases, and in worthless check cases when the amount of 
the check is SI, 000 or less, the offender has made 
restitution, and the offender has fewer than four previous 
worthless check convictions. Magistrates may accept 
waivers of appearance and pleas of guilty or admissions 
of responsibility in misdemeanor or infraction cases 
involving traffic, alcohol, boating, hunting and fishing 
violation cases, for which a uniform schedule of fines has 
been adopted by the Conference of Chief District Court 
Judges. Magistrates also conduct initial hearings to fix 
conditions of release for arrested defendants, and they 
are empowered to issue arrest and search warrants. 

Administration 

A chief district court judge is appointed for each 



district court district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court from among the elected judges in the respective 
districts. Subject to the Chief Justice's general super- 
vision, each chief judge exercises administrative super- 
vision and authority over the operation of the district 
courts and magistrates in the district. Each chief judge is 
responsible for scheduling sessions of district court and 
assigning judges, supervising the calendaring of non- 
criminal cases, assigning matters to magistrates, making 
arrangements for court reporting and jury trials in civil 
cases, and supervising the discharge of clerical functions 
in the district courts. 

The chief district court judges meet in conference at 
least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual con- 
ference adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses and 
fines for their violation for use by magistrates and clerks 
of court in accepting defendants' waivers of appearance, 
guilty pleas, and admissions of responsibility. 



Expenditures 

Total expenditures for the operation of the district 
courts in 1990-91 amounted to $37,918,302. Included in 
this total are the personnel costs of court reporters and 
secretaries as well as the personnel costs of the 179 
district court judges and 659 magistrates. The 1990-91 
total for the district courts is 18.2% of the General Fund 
expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial 
Department, compared to a 17.4% share of total Judicial 
Department expenditures in the 1989-90 fiscal year. 



Caseload 

During 1990-91 the statewide total number of district 
court filings (civil and criminal) decreased by 17,108 
cases (0.8%) from the total number reported for 1989-90. 
Not including juvenile proceedings and mental health 
hospital commitment hearings, 2,253,348 total cases 
were filed in 1990-91, compared to 2,270,456 total filings 
in 1989-90. This was the first time that total district court 
filings have decreased since 1981-82. The overall decrease 
is attributable to decreases in criminal motor vehicle, 
infraction, and civil magistrate filings. Considering 
criminal motor vehicle and infraction cases together, 
there was a decrease of 20,623 cases (1.8%) from the 
number of such cases filed in 1989-90. Filings of civil 
magistrate cases decreased by 13,363 (4.6%) from the 
number filed in 1989-90. Criminal non-motor vehicle 
case filings increased by 1.2% (6,958 cases) during 1990- 
91, and domestic relations case filings increased by 
10.6% (8,191 cases), above the numbers of these cases 
filed during 1989-90. 



40 



The District Courts, Continued 



The Conference of Chief District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1991) 

Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids, President 
George W. Hamrick, Shelby, Vice-President 
J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro, Secretary-Treasurer 




Judge Nicholas Long 



41 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 
(As of June 30, 1991) 



Prosecutorial 
District 

1 H. P. WILLIAMS, JR., Elizabeth City 

2 MITCHELL D. NORTON, Washington 
3A THOMAS D. HAIGWOOD, Greenville 
3B W. DAVID McFADYEN, JR., New Bern 

4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, Jacksonville 

5 JERRY L. SPIVEY, Wilmington 
6A W. ROBERT CAUDLE, II, Halifax 

6B DAVID H. BEARD, JR., Murfreesboro 

7 HOWARD S. BONEY, JR., Tarboro 

8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro 

9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford 

10 C. COLON WILLOUGHBY, JR., Raleigh 

1 1 THOMAS H. LOCK, Smithfield 

12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 

13 REX GORE, Bolivia 

14 RONALD L. STEPHENS, Durham 
15A STEVE A. BALOG, Graham 

15B CARL R. FOX, Pittsboro 

16A JEAN E. POWELL, Raeford 



Prosecutorial 
District 

16B JOHN R. TOWNSEND, Lumberton 

17A THURMAN B. HAMPTON, Wentworth 

17B JAMES L. DELLINGER, JR., Dobson 

18 HORACE M. KIMEL, JR., Greensboro 

19A WILLIAM D. KENERLY, Concord 

19B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro 

20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe 

21 THOMAS J. KEITH, Winston-Salem 

22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington 

23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboi 

24 JAMES THOMAS RUSHER, Boone 

25 ROBERT E. THOMAS, Newton 

26 PETER S. GILCHRIST, Charlotte 
27A MICHAEL K. LANDS, Gastonia 
27B WILLIAM C. YOUNG, Shelby 

28 RONALD L. MOORE, Asheville 

29 ALAN C. LEONARD, Rutherfordton 

30 CHARLES W. HIPPS, Waynesville 



42 



THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 



The Conference of District Attorneys 


(Executive Committee as 


of June 30, 1991) 


W. David McFadyen, Jr. 


, President 


C. Colon Willoughby, Jr. 


, President- Elect 


Horace M. Kimel, Jr., Vi 


ce- President 


H. P. Williams, Jr. 




Ronald L. Stephens 




Thomas D. Haigwood 




Calvin B. Hamrick 




H. W. Zimmerman, Jr. 





The District Attorneys Association 

(Officers as of June 30, 1991) 

W. David McFadyen, Jr., New Bern, President 
C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., Raleigh, President- Elect 
Horace M. Kimel, Jr., Greensboro, Vice-President 
Carolyn Brady, Beaufort, Secretary-Treasurer 




District Attorney 
W. David McFadyen, Jr. 



43 



THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 



The State is divided into 37 prosecutorial districts 
which, with two exceptions, correspond to the 37 district 
court districts. The counties in District Court District 3 
make up two separate prosecutorial districts, Prosecu- 
torial Districts 3A and 3B. The counties in District 
Court Districts 19A and 19C comprise single Prosecu- 
torial District 19A. Prosecutorial Districts are shown on 
the map in Part II of this Report. A district attorney is 
elected by the voters in each of the 37 districts for four- 
year terms. 

Duties 

The district attorney represents the State in all criminal 
actions brought in the superior and district courts in the 
district, and is responsible for ensuring that infraction 
cases are prosecuted efficiently. In addition to prosecu- 
torial functions, the district attorney is responsible for 
calendaring criminal cases for trial. 

Resources 

Each district attorney may employ on a full-time basis 
the number of assistant district attorneys authorized by 
statute for the district. As of June 30, 1 99 1 , a total of 257 
assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 37 
prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District 
26 (Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff (20 
assistants) and the district attorney of three districts 
(Districts 6 A, 6B, and 16 A) had the smallest staff (two 
assistants). 

Each district attorney is authorized to employ an 
administrative assistant to aid in preparing cases for trial 
and to expedite the criminal court docket. The district 
attorney in 18 districts is authorized to employ an 
investigatorial assistant who aids in the investigation of 
cases prior to trial. All district attorneys are authorized 
to employ at least one victim and witness assistant. 

Expenditures 

A total of $24,021,147 was expended in 1990-91 for 
the 37 district attorney offices. In addition, a total of 
SI 10,716 was expended for the District Attorney's Con- 
ference and its staff. 

1990-91 Caseload 

A total of 115,099 criminal cases were filed in the 
superior courts during 1990-91, consisting of 73,908 
felony cases and 41,191 misdemeanor cases; all but 7,121 
of the misdemeanors were appeals from the district 
courts. The total number of criminal filings in the 
superior courts in 1989-90 was 108,784. The increase of 
6,315 cases in 1990-91 represents a 5.8% increase over 
the 1989-90 total. 

A total of 109,572 criminal cases were disposed of in 
the superior courts during 1 990-9 1 . There were 69,8 1 3 felony 



dispositions, and 39,759 misdemeanor dispositions. In 
1990-91, total criminal case dispositions increased by 
9,714 cases (9.7%) over the 99,858 cases disposed of in 
1989-90. 

The median ages of criminal cases at disposition in the 
superior courts during 1990-91 were 96 days for felony 
cases and 83 days for misdemeanor cases. In 1989-90, the 
median age of felony cases at disposition was 86 days, 
and the median age at disposition for misdemeanor cases 
was 76 days. 

The number of criminal cases disposed of by jury trial 
in the superior courts decreased from 3,093 in 1989-90 to 
2,959 in 1990-91, a decrease of 4.3%. As in past years, the 
proportion of total criminal cases disposed by jury was 
small, 3.1% in 1989-90 compared to 2.7% in 1990-91. 
However, the relatively small number of cases disposed 
by jury requires a great proportion of the superior court 
time and resources devoted to handling the criminal 
caseload. 

In contrast, in 1990-91 a majority (59,605 or 54.4%) of 
criminal case dispositions in superior courts were pro- 
cessed on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a 
trial. This percentage represents a small increase from 
the proportion of guilty plea dispositions reported for 
1989-90(53.9%). 

"Dismissal by district attorney" accounted for a signif- 
icant percentage of all criminal case dispositions in 
superior courts during 1990-91, a total of 32,625 cases, 
or 29.8% of all dispositions. This proportion is compar- 
able to that reported for prior years. Many of the 
dismissals involved the situation of two or more cases 
pending against the same defendant, where the defendant 
pleads guilty to some charges and other charges are 
dismissed. 

The total number of criminal cases filed in the superior 
courts during 1990-91 was 5,527 cases greater than the 
total number of cases disposed during the year. Conse- 
quently, the number of criminal cases pending in superior 
court increased from 43,065 at the beginning of the fiscal 
year, to a total pending at year's end of 48,592, an 
increase of 12.8%. 

The median age of felony cases pending in the superior 
courts increased from 96 days on June 30, 1990, to 110 
days on June 30, 1991. The median age of pending mis- 
demeanor cases increased from 93 days on June 30, 
1990, to 100 days on June 30, 1991. 

In the district courts, 1,755,988 criminal cases and 
infractions were filed during 1990-91. This total consisted 
of 493,974 criminal motor vehicle cases, 651,728 infrac- 
tion cases, and 610,286 criminal non-motor vehicle 
cases. A comparison of total filings in 1990-91 with total 
filings in 1989-90 (1,769,653) reveals a small decrease 
(0.8%) in district court criminal and infraction filings 
(13,665 cases). Filings of criminal non-motor vehicle 
cases increased by 6,958 cases (1.2%), from 603,328 cases 
in 1989-90 to 610,286 cases in 1990-91. Filings of motor 



44 



The District Attorneys, Continued 



vehicle plus infraction cases decreased by 20,623 cases 
(1.8%), from 1,166,325 in 1989-90 to 1,145,702 in 
1990-91. 

Total dispositions of motor vehicle and infraction 
cases in the district courts amounted to 1,147,659 cases 
during 1990-91 (486,812 motor vehicle dispositions and 
660,847 infraction dispositions). As in prior years, a sub- 
stantial portion of such cases are disposed by waiver of 
appearance and entry of pleas of guilty (or "responsibil- 
ity" in infraction cases) before a clerk or magistrate. 
During 1990-91, 485,218 motor vehicle and infraction 
cases (42.3%) were disposed by waiver. This substantial 
number of cases did not, of course, require action by the 
district attorneys' offices and should not be regarded as 
having been a part of the district attorneys' caseload. 
The remaining 662,441 infraction and motor vehicle 
cases (271,786 infraction and 390,655 motor vehicle 
cases) were disposed by means other than waiver. This 
balance was 29,154 cases (or 4.6%) more than the 
633,287 non-waiver motor vehicle and infraction dispo- 
sitions in 1989-90. 

With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case 
dispositions, 605,286 such cases were disposed of in 
district courts in 1990-91. As with superior court criminal 



cases, the most frequent method of disposition was by 
entry of guilty plea; the next most frequent was dismissal 
by the district attorney. A total of 210,370 cases, or 
34.8% of the dispositions were by guilty pleas. An addi- 
tional 1 80,6 1 8 cases, or 29.8% of the total were disposed 
of by prosecutor dismissal. The remaining cases were 
disposed of by waiver (10.1%), trial (6.8%), as a felony 
probable cause matter (10.8%), or by other means 
(7.7%). 

During 1990-91, the median age at disposition of 
criminal non-motor vehicle cases was 34 days, about the 
same as the median age at disposition for these cases in 
1989-90, 33 days. 

During 1990-91, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle 
cases in the district courts exceeded dispositions by 5,000 
cases. The number of non-motor vehicle criminal cases 
pending at year's end was 1 3 1 ,9 1 8, compared with a total 
of 126,918 that were pending at the beginning of the 
year, an increase of 3.9% in the number of pending cases. 
The median age for pending non-motor vehicle cases was 
65 days on June 30, 1991, the same as on June 30, 1990. 

Additional information on the criminal caseloads in 
superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this 
Report. 



45 



CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 
(As of June 30, 1991) 



COUNTY 


CLERK OF COURT 


COUNTY 


Alamance 


Louise B. Wilson 


Johnston 


Alexander 


Seth Chapman 


Jones 


Alleghany 


Rebecca J. Gambill 


Lee 


Anson 


R. Frank Hightower 


Lenoir 


Ashe 


Jerry L. Roten 


Lincoln 


Avery 


Robert F. Taylor 


Macon 


Beaufort 


Thomas S. Payne, III 


Madison 


Bertie 


John Tyler 


Martin 


Bladen 


Hilda H. Coleman 


McDowell 


Brunswick 


Diana R. Morgan 


Mecklenburg 


Buncombe 


Robert H. Christy, Jr. 


Mitchell 


Burke 


Iva C. Rhoney 


Montgomery 


Cabarrus 


Estus B. White 


Moore 


Caldwell 


Jeanette Turner 


Nash 


Camden 


Catherine W. McCoy 


New Hanover 


Carteret 


Darlene Leonard 


Northampton 


Caswell 


Janet H. Cobb 


Onslow 


Catawba 


Barbara M. Towery 


Orange 


Chatham 


Janice Oldham 


Pamlico 


Cherokee 


■ Rose Mary Crooke 


Pasquotank 


Chowan 


Marjorie H. Hollowell 


Pender 


Clay 


James H. McClure 


Perquimans 


Cleveland 


Linda C. Thrift 


Person 


Columbus 


Lacy R. Thompson 


Pitt 


Craven 


Jean W. Boyd 


Polk 


Cumberland 


George T. Griffin 


Randolph 


Currituck 


Sheila R. Doxey 


Richmond 


Dare 


Betty Mann 


Robeson 


Davidson 


Martha S. Nicholson 


Rockingham 


Davie 


Kenneth D. Boger 


Rowan 


Duplin 


John A. Johnson 


Rutherford 


Durham 


James Leo Carr 


Sampson 


Edgecombe 


Carol A. White 


Scotland 


Forsyth 


Frances P. Storey 


Stanly 


Franklin 


Ralph S. Knott 


Stokes 


Gaston 


Betty B. Jenkins 


Surry 


Gates 


Terry L. Riddick 


Swain 


Graham 


Vicki L. Teem 


Transylvania 


Granville 


Mary Ruth C. Nelms 


Tyrrell 


Greene 


Joyce L. Harrell 


Union 


Guilford 


Estie C. Bennington 


Vance 


Halifax 


Ellen C. Neathery 


Wake 


Harnett 


Georgia Lee Brown 


Warren 


Haywood 


William G. Henry 


Washington 


Henderson 


Thomas H. Thompson 


Watauga 


Hertford 


Shirley G. Johnson 


Wayne 


Hoke 


Juanita Edmund 


Wilkes 


Hyde 


Lenora R. Bright 


Wilson 


Iredell 


Betty J. Baity 


Yadkin 


Jackson 


Frank Watson, Jr. 


Yancey 



CLERK OF COURT 

Will R. Crocker 
Ronald H. Metts 
Lucille H. York 
Claude C. Davis 
Pamela C. Huskey 
Anna I. Carson 
James W. Cody 
Phyllis G. Pearson 
Ruth B. Williams 
Martha H. Curran 
Linda D. Woody 
Charles M. Johnson 
Rachel H. Comer 
Rachel M. Joyner 
Brenda A. Haraldson 
David C. Bridgers 
Edward T. Cole, Sr. 
Shirley L. James 
Mary Jo Potter 
Frances W. Thompson 
Frances D. Basden 
Lois G. Godwin 
W. Thomas Humphries 
Sandra Gaskins 
Judy P. Arledge 
Lynda B. Skeen 
Catherine S. Wilson 
Dixie I. Barrington 
Frankie C. Williams 
Edward P. Norvell 
Keith H. Melton 
Charlie T. McCullen 
C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr. 
David R. Fisher 
William F. Southern, Jr. 
Patricia C. Todd 
Sara Robinson 
Marian M. McMahon 
Nathan T. Everett 
Nola H. McCollum 
Lucy Longmire 
John M. Kennedy 
Richard E. Hunter, Jr. 
Timothy L. Spear 
John T. Bingham 
David B. Brantly 
Wayne Roope 
John L. Whitley 
Harold J. Long 
F. Warren Hughes 



46 



THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 



Association of Clerks of Superior Court 

(Officers as of June 30, 1991) 

Judy P. Arledge, Polk County 
President 

C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr., Scotland County 
First Vice-President 

Georgia Lee Brown, Harnett County 
Second Vice-President 

Thomas H. Thompson, Henderson County 
Secretary 

Richard E. Hunter, Jr., Warren County 
Treasurer 




Judy P. Arledge 



47 



THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 



A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for a four-year 
term by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 
counties. The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide 
special proceedings and is, ex officio, judge of probate, 
in addition to performing record-keeping and adminis- 
trative functions for both the superior and district courts 
of the county. 

Jurisdiction 

The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court 
includes the probate of wills and administration of 
decedents' estates. It also includes such "special proceed- 
ings" as adoptions, condemnations of private property 
under the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings 
to establish boundaries, foreclosures, and certain pro- 
ceedings to administer the estates of minors and incom- 
petent adults. The right of appeal from the clerks' 
judgments in such cases lies to the superior court. 

The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue 
search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and 
other process necessary to execute the judgments entered 
in the superior and district courts of the county. For 
certain offenses and infractions, the clerk is authorized 
to accept defendants' waivers of appearance and pleas of 
guilty or admissions of responsibility and to impose 
penalties or fines in accordance with a schedule estab- 
lished by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges. 

Administration 

The clerk of superior court performs administrative 
duties for both the superior and district courts of the 
county. Among these duties are the maintenance of 
court records and indexes, the control and accounting of 
funds, and the furnishing of information to the Adminis- 
trative Office of the Courts. 

In most counties, the clerk continues to perform 
certain functions related to preparation of civil case 
calendars, and in many counties, the clerk's staff assists 
the district attorney in preparing criminal case calendars 
as well. Policy and oversight responsibility for civil case 



calendaring is vested in the State's senior resident super- 
ior court judges and chief district court judges. However, 
day-to-day civil calendar preparation is the clerk's 
responsibility in all districts except those served by trial 
court administrators. 

Expenditures 

A total of $63,509,953 was expended in 1990-91 for 
the operation of the 100 clerk of superior court offices. 
In addition to the salaries and other expenses of the 
clerks and their staffs, this total includes expenditures 
for jurors' fees and witness expenses. Total expenditures 
for clerk's offices in 1990-91 amounted to 30.5% of the 
General Fund expenditures for the operations of the 
entire Judicial Department. 

1990-91 Caseload 

During 1990-91, estate case filings totaled 46,735, 
which was a slight decrease (0.2%) from the 46,832 estate 
cases filed in 1989-90. Estate case dispositions totaled 
45,920 in 1990-91, or 1.3% more than the previous year's 
total of 45,330. 

A total of 49,689 special proceedings were filed before 
the 100 clerks of superior court in 1990-91. This is an 
increase of 1,947 cases (4.1%) from the 47,742 filings in 
the previous fiscal year. Special proceedings dispositions 
totaled 42,783, 9.2% more than the previous year's total 
of 39,171. 

The clerks of superior court are also responsible for 
handling the records of all case filings and dispositions in 
the superior and district courts. The total number of 
superior court case filings during the 1990-91 year was 
135,419 (not including estates and special proceedings), 
and the total number of district court filings, not 
including juvenile proceedings and mental health hospi- 
tal commitment hearings, was 2,253,348. 

More detailed information on the estates and special 
proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this 
Report. 



4X 



THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

July 1,1990- June 30, 1991 



As part of the unified judicial system, the N.C. Consti- 
tution (Article IV, Section 15) provides for "an adminis- 
trative office of the courts to carry out the provisions of 
this Article." The General Assembly has established the 
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) as the admin- 
istrative arm of the Judicial Branch. 

The Director of the AOC (also referred to as the 
Administrative Officer of the Courts) is appointed by and 
serves at the pleasure of the Chief Justice of the North 
Carolina Supreme Court. The Director has the duty to 
carry out the many functions and responsibilities assigned 
by statute to the Director or to the AOC. 

The Assistant Director of the AOC is also appointed by 
the Chief Justice, and serves as the administrative assistant 
to the Chief Justice. The duties of the Assistant Director 
include assisting the Chief Justice regarding assignment 
of superior court judges, assisting the Supreme Court in 
preparing calendars of superior court sessions, and 
performing such other duties as may be assigned by the 
Chief Justice or the Director of the AOC. 

The basic responsibility of the AOC is to maintain an 
efficient and effective court system by providing adminis- 
trative support statewide for the courts and for court- 
related offices. Among the AOC's specific duties are to 
establish fiscal policies for and prepare and administer the 
budget of the Judicial Branch; prescribe uniform admin- 
istrative and business methods, forms, and records to be 
used by the clerks of superior court statewide; procure 
and distribute equipment, books, forms, and supplies for 
the court system; collect, compile, and publish statistical 
data and other information on the judicial and financial 
operations of the courts and related offices; determine the 
state of the dockets, evaluate the practices and procedures 
of the courts, and make recommendations for improve- 
ment of the operations of the court system; investigate, 
make recommendations concerning, and provide assist- 
ance to county authorities regarding the securing of 
adequate physical facilities for the courts; administer the 
payroll and other personnel-related needs of all Judicial 
Branch employees; carry out administrative duties relat- 
ing to programs for representation for indigents; arrange 
for the printing and distribution of the published opinions 
of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals; and perform 
numerous other duties and responsibilities, including 
production of this Annual Report. 

The AOC is organized into eight divisions plus an 
Office of Legal Counsel and an Administrator of special 
projects. The operations of the Juvenile Services Division, 
relating to juvenile probation and aftercare, and the 
Office of Guardian ad Litem Services, relating to provi- 
sion of guardians ad litem for juveniles, are summarized 
on following pages of this Report. 

The Office of Legal Counsel advises and assists the 
Director of the AOC with contractual and other legal 



matters affecting the AOC and court operations, and with 
review of and recommendations concerning legislation 
that may impact the courts. 

The Court Services Division identifies, develops, imple- 
ments, and administers programs and procedures for 
supporting the day-to-day administrative operations of 
the trial courts in all 100 counties. Court offices and 
programs supported by the Court Services Division 
include the clerks of superior court, trial court admin- 
istrators, court reporters, indigency screeners, and alter- 
native dispute resolution programs. Among its other 
activities, the Court Services Division has primary 
responsibility for the maintenance and distribution of 
forms, and develops procedures and provides technical 
assistance in such areas as jury management, case calen- 
daring and monitoring, facility planning, training pro- 
grams, and records management, including the micro- 
filming and archiving of records. 

The Fiscal Services Division assists the Director of the 
AOC with preparation and management of the budget for 
the entire Judicial Branch. This Division's responsibilities 
include collecting, processing, and disbursing all Judicial 
Branch funds, including court costs and fees, indigents' 
attorney fee payments and judgments, and sales of equip- 
ment and publications; processing the payrolls of all 
Judicial Branch employees; and developing and imple- 
menting accounting and auditing systems. 

The Information Services Division (ISD) plans for, 
budgets for, and administers the> information processing 
needs of the Judicial Branch. Its organizational mission is 
to provide comprehensive data processing, communica- 
tions, and decision support to the court system statewide. 
ISD operates the AOC's Raleigh-based mainframe com- 
puter and develops and maintains the automated Court 
Information System (CIS). The CIS consists of computer- 
based systems that assist the trial courts in high-volume 
work areas, including civil indexing, criminal and infrac- 
tion case processing, child support enforcement, cash 
receipting, and financial management. A rapidly growing 
part of automation improvement efforts is that of data- 
sharing across governmental agencies, including the 
Division of Criminal Information, State Highway Patrol, 
and Division of Motor Vehicles. Other ISD services 
include operating a 24-hour help desk, developing soft- 
ware, configuring and integrating local area networks and 
microcomputer workstations, operating data circuit and 
voice/ telephone networks, and providing systems main- 
tenance statewide. ISD also maintains the AOC's Statis- 
tical Reporting System, using statistics from the CIS to 
prepare and distribute periodic and special case manage- 
ment reports to court officials, including the case data 
reported in this Annual Report. 

The Personnel Division administers the salary, benefits, 
and other personnel-related affairs of the Judicial Branch, 



49 



The Administrative Office of the Courts, Continued 



makes recommendations to the Director of the AOC 
concerning the pay scales and classification of employees, 
conducts or arranges for training of the AOC employees 
and managers, and carries out numerous other duties to 
enhance the recruitment, retention, productivity, and 
satisfaction of the AOC and other Judicial Branch 
employees. 

The Purchasing Services Division procures all equip- 
ment, supplies, law books, publications, printing, binding, 
and contractual and other services for the Judicial 
Branch. The responsibilities of the Purchasing Services 
Division include oversight of the competitive bidding 
system in coordination with the Department of Adminis- 
tration, administration of Judicial Branch mail and 
telecommunication services, management of the AOC 
print shop, maintenance of the AOC fixed asset system, 
and contracting for and handling of services for equip- 
ment maintenance. 

The Research and Planning Division evaluates the 
practices, procedures, operations, and organization of the 
court system, and makes recommendations to the Direc- 
tor of the AOC regarding how the court system might best 
respond to present and future needs. On request of the 
AOC Director, the Research and Planning Division eval- 



uates the impact of proposed legislation or other propo- 
sals that may impact court operations, provides assistance 
and oversight for the production of AOC publications, 
and provides assistance to the counties in the evaluation 
of and planning for adequate physical facilities. The 
Research and Planning Division also provides support 
for the AOC-wide preparation and administration of 
grants. 

The Special Projects Administrator, in coordination 
with other AOC divisions, develops, implements and 
manages special studies or projects in diverse areas of 
court operations, as requested by the Director of the 
AOC. 

A total of $1 1,207,704 was expended for AOC opera- 
tions during 1990-91, representing 5.4% of total Judicial 
Branch expenditures. Of the total $11,207,704, 46.2% 
($5,178,352) was expended for the purchase and opera- 
tion of computer equipment, management of automated 
systems, and operating expenses of the Information 
Services Division. The remaining 53.8% ($6,029,352) of 
total AOC expenditures was for other AOC operations, 
including a total of $429,634 for operation of the AOC 
warehouse and print shop. 



Administrative Office of the Courts 

(As of June 30, 1991) 

Franklin Freeman, Jr., Director 
Dallas A. Cameron, Jr., Assistant Director 
W. Robert Atkinson, Assistant to the Director 
Diane Divine, Executive Assistant 

Division Administrators: 

Thomas J. Andrews, Counsel 
Daniel Becker, Court Services 
Christopher A. Marks, Fiscal Services 
Ilene Nelson, Guardian ad Litem Services 
Francis J. Taillefer, Information Services 
Thomas A. Danek, Juvenile Services 
Ivan Hill, Personnel Services 
Douglas Pearson, Purchasing Services 
Rick Kane and LeAnn Wallace, Research and 

Planning 
John Taylor, Special Projects 




Franklin Freeman, Jr. 



50 



JUVENILE SERVICES DIVISION 



The Juvenile Services Division of the Administrative 
Office of the Courts provides intake, probation and 
aftercare services to juveniles who are before the District 
Courts for delinquent matters, i.e., violations of the 
criminal code, including motor vehicle violations, and 
for undisciplined matters, such as running away from 
home, being truant, and being beyond the parents' 
disciplinary control. 

Intake is the screening of complaints alleging delin- 
quent or undisciplined behavior by children, to deter- 
mine whether petitions should be filed. During the 1990- 
91 fiscal year a total of 33,161 complaints were brought 
to the attention of intake counselors. Of this number, 
22,921 (69%) were approved for filing, and 10,240(31%) 
were not approved for filing. 

Probation and aftercare refer to supervision of chil- 
dren in their own communities. Probation is authorized 
by judicial order. Aftercare service is provided for 
juveniles after their release from a training school. 
(Protective supervision is also a form of court-ordered 
supervision within the community; this service is com- 
bined with probation and aftercare.) 



In 1990-91 a total of 14,433 juveniles were supervised 
in the probation and aftercare program. 

Expenditures 

The Juvenile Services Division is State-funded. The 
expenditures for fiscal year 1990-91 totaled $14,507,797. 
The 1990-91 expenditures amounted to 7.0% of all 
General Fund expenditures for the operation of the 
entire Judicial Department, compared to 6.5% in 
1989-90. 

Administration 

The Administrator of the Juvenile Services Division is 
appointed by the Director of the Administrative Office 
of the Courts. A chief court counselor is appointed for 
each judicial district by the Administrator of the Juvenile 
Services Division, with the approval of the Chief District 
Court Judge and the Administrative Officer of the 
Courts. Subject to the Administrator's general super- 
vision, each chief court counselor exercises administra- 
tive supervision over the operation of the court coun- 
seling services in the respective districts. 



Juvenile Services Division Staff 
(As of June 30, 1991) 

Thomas A. Danek, Administrator 

Nancy C. Patteson, Area Administrator 

Edward F. Taylor, Area Administrator 

John T. Wilson, Area Administrator 

Rex B. Yates, Area Administrator 

M. Harold Rogerson, Jr., Program Specialist 

Arlene J. Kincaid, Administrative Officer 



51 



JUVENILE SERVICES DIVISION 
(As of June 30, 1991) 



District Court 

District Chief Court Counselors 



District Court 

District Chief Court Counselors 



1 


Donald Alexander 


: 


Joseph A. Paul 


3 


Everlena C. Rogers 


4 


George Ashley 


5 


Phyllis Roebuck 


6A 


John R. Brady 


bB 


Archie Snipes 


7 


Pamela Honeycutt 


s 


Lynn C. Sasser 


9 


Sherman Wilson 


10 


Larry C. Dix 


11 


Henry C. Cox 


12 


Phil T. Utley 


13 


Jimmy E. Godwin 


14 


(vacant) 


15A 


Harry L. Derr 


15B 


Donald Hargrove 


16A 


Alfred Bridges 



16B 


Carey Collins 


17A 


Charles Barton 


17B 


Jack H. Moore, Jr. 


18 


J. Manley Dodson 


19A 


Verne Brady 


and 19C 


James C. Queen 


20 


Jimmy L. Craig 


21 


James J. Weakland 


22 


Carl T. Duncan 


23 


C. Wayne Dixon 


24 


K. Wayne Arnold 


25 


Lee Cox 


26 


James A. Yancey 


27A 


Charles Reeves 


27B 


Gloria Newman 


28 


Louis Parrish 


29 


Kenneth E. Lanning 


30 


Betty G. Alley 



NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF 

COURT COUNSELORS 

(Officers for 1990-91) 

Executive Committee Members 

Richard Alligood, President 

E. Blake Belcher, President- Elect 

Marilynn Sproull, Secretary 

Karen Jones, Treasurer 

Donald Hargrove, Parliamentarian 

Board Members 



1988-91 

Kathy Dudley 
Martha Lauten 
Wayne Arnold 



1989-92 

Joan Blanchard 
Ken Cooke 
Donald Roberts 



1990-93 

Randall Graham 
Karen McDonald 
Timothy Montgomery 




Richard Alligood 



52 



OFFICE OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM SERVICES 



Program Services 

When a petition alleging abuse or neglect of a juvenile 
is filed in district court, the judge appoints a trained 
volunteer guardian ad litem and an attorney advocate to 
work together to represent the child's best interests. The 
attorney protects the child's legal rights while ensuring 
that the volunteer guardian has appropriate access to the 
court process. The trained volunteer investigates the 
child's situation and works with the attorney to report 
the child's needs to the court and to make recommen- 
dations for case disposition and any necessary continuing 
supervision until court intervention is no longer required. 
During 1990-91, a total of 1,817 volunteers were active in 
the North Carolina program and represented a total of 
10,387 abused and neglected children. These volunteers 
participated in 13,660 court hearings and gave approxi- 
mately 167,700 volunteer hours to casework and training 
in the State's guardian ad litem program. 

Expenditures 

During 1990-91, total expenditures for the guardian 
ad litem program amounted to $2,848,147. Of this 
amount, $847,823 was for program attorney fees and 
$2,000,324 was for program administration. The total 
included reimbursement of volunteers' expense of $93,896 
(covering 138,060 casework hours for 10,387 abused and 
neglected children). In 1989-90, there were 1,511 volun- 
teers representing 8,161 children and providing 119,871 
casework hours with reimbursement expenses of $98,810. 



Committee to work with the Administrator, who is 
responsible for planning and directing the guardian ad 
litem services program throughout the State. 

The Administrator is assisted by three regional admin- 
istrators, each of whom supervises the development and 
implementation of services for a group of districts, 
directing the local program, providing assistance in 
training programs for volunteers, and resolving opera- 
tional problems in the districts. 

A district administrator is employed for 32 of the 
State's 37 district court districts to recruit, screen, train 
and supervise volunteers. District administrators contact 
community groups, local agencies, the courts, and the 
media in order to develop volunteer participation, solicit 
support from key officials, provide public education 
about the program, and cultivate services for children. 
The district administrators plan an initial sixteen-hour 
training course for new volunteers, match children (who 
are before the courts) with volunteers, implement con- 
tinued training for experienced guardians, and provide 
supervision of, and consultation and support to, volun- 
teers. Other district administrator responsibilities are to 
ensure that in each case the attorney receives information 
from the volunteer assigned to the case and that the 
court receives timely oral or written reports each time a 
child's case is heard. (District administrators were not 
employed during 1990-91 for districts in which the 
caseload was too small to justify a district administrator 
position. In those districts, a contract attorney served as 
the coordinator and supervisor of the volunteer pro- 
gram.) 



Administration 

The Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services, established 
by the General Assembly in 1983, is a division of the 
Administrative Office of the Courts. The Director of the 
Administrative Office of the Courts appoints the Admin- 
istrator of the Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services and 
appoints members of a Guardian Ad Litem Advisory 



Guardian Ad Litem Staff 
(As of June 30, 1991) 

Ilene B. Nelson, Administrator 

Alma Brown, Regional Administrator 

Cindy Mays, Regional Administrator 

Marilyn Stevens, Regional Administrator 



53 



GUARDIAN AD LITEM DIVISION 
(As of June 30, 1991) 



istrict Court 




District 


District Administratoi 


1 


Veola Spivey 


2 


Jennifer Leggett 


3 


Carol Mattocks 


4 


Jean Hawley 


5 


Jane Brister 


6A B 


Patsey Moseley-Moss 


" 


Sandra Pittman 


s 


Claudia Kadis 


9 


Nina Freeman 


hi 


Lloyd Inman 


12 


Brownie Smathers 


13 


Michele Rohde and 




Betty Buck 


14 


Cy Gurney 


15A 


Eleanor Ketcham 


15B 


Floyd Wicker 



istrict Court 




District 


District Administ 


16A 


Julie Miller 


16B 


Gladys Pierce 


18 


Sam Parrish 


19A/C 


Amy Collins 


19B 


Lee Malpass 


20 


Martha Sue Hall 


21 


Linda Garrou 


22 


Pam Ashmore 


25 


Anglea Phillips 


26 


Judi Strause 


27A 


Sindy Waggoner 


27B 


Betsy Sorrell 


28 


Jean Moore 


29 


Barbara King 


30 


Celia Larson 



54 



TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATORS 
(As of June 30, 1991) 

Districts 3A (Pitt County) and 3B (Carteret, Craven and Pamlico Counties) 
William Nicholls 

Districts 4A (Duplin, Jones and Sampson Counties; district court only) and 4B (Onslow County; superior and district 
court) 
Carroll Edmundson 

District 5 (New Hanover and Pender Counties) 
Celia Smith 

District 10 (Wake County) 
Sallie B. Dunn 

District 12 (Cumberland County) 
Todd Nuccio 

District 13 (Bladen, Brunswick and Columbus Counties) 
Steven H. Foster 

District 14 (Durham County) 
Michael A. DiMichele 

District 21 (Forsyth County) 
Ginger Carson* 

District 26 (Mecklenburg County) 
Thomas U. Cameron, Jr. 

District 27A (Gaston County) 
Arthur J. Bernardino 

District 28 (Buncombe County) 
Burton W. Butler 

District 29 (Henderson, McDowell, Polk, Rutherford and Transylvania Counties) 
Jerry Brewer 

* Ginger Carson was the Trial Court Administrator in District 21 until December 31, 1990. 



55 



TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATORS 



Responsibilities for managing the day-to-day adminis- 
trative operations of the trial courts are placed by statute 
and by delegation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court with senior resident superior court judges and 
chief district court judges. Within each district, these 
officials have considerable discretion in managing the 
operation of their respective courts, including in such 
areas as civil case calendaring, jury utilization, and 
establishing and managing local rules. 

In 1977, the Administrative Office of the Courts 
received a grant of federal funds to establish the position 
of trial court administrator as a pilot project in three 
districts. The trial court administrators provided profes- 
sional assistance to court officials in managing trial 
court operations. Following favorable experience in the 
pilot project, in 1979 the General Assembly established 
state-funded positions in three judicial districts. Since 
1979. additional positions have been established in other 
districts designated by the Administrative Office of the 
Courts under G.S. 7A-355. At present, twelve trial court 
administrators serve fourteen superior court districts or 
set of districts, encompassing twenty-five counties (al- 
though the trial court administrator serving the three 
counties in District 4A handles only district court 
matters). 

The general duties of trial court administrators, set 
forth in G.S. 7A-356, are to assist in managing civil 
dockets, improve jury utilization, and perform such 



other duties as may be assigned by the senior resident 
superior court judge or other judges designated by the 
senior resident judge. The specific duties and responsi- 
bilities assigned to trial court administrators vary from 
district to district, reflecting the priorities of local court 
officials and the demands of the local environment. 

Trial court administrators coordinate alternative 
methods of dispute resolution including arbitration, 
summary jury trials, and custody mediation, manage 
certain indigent defense programs, such as indigency 
screening, and serve as a technical resource to other 
court officials, including the chief district court judge, 
clerk of superior court, district attorney, and public 
defender. Trial court administrators are often given the 
responsibility to coordinate the court's involvement in 
issues relating to court facilities, pretrial release pro- 
grams, and jails, and frequently serve as the court's 
liaison with other governmental and private organiza- 
tions, the press, and the public. 

Following screening by the Administrative Office of 
the Courts, trial court administrators are appointed by 
and serve under the general supervision of the senior 
resident superior court judge of the district or set of 
districts. During 1990-91, twelve trial court administra- 
tors served the following superior court districts or sets 
of districts: 3A, 3B, 4A (district court matters only), 4B, 
5, 10A-D, 12A-C, 13, 14A-B, 21A-D, 26A-C, 27A, 28 
and 29. 



56 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS 



During 1990-91, there were eleven public defender 
offices in North Carolina, serving Defender Districts 3A, 
3B, 12, 14, 15B, 16A, 16B, 18, 26, 27A, and 28. Public 
defenders in all districts except 16B are appointed by the 
senior resident superior court judge of the superior court 
district or set of districts which includes the county or 
counties of the defender district; appointments are made 
from a list of not less than two and not more than three 
nominees submitted by written ballot of the licensed 
attorneys resident in the defender district.* Their terms 
are four years. Public defenders are entitled by statute to 
the numbers of full or part-time assistants and investi- 
gators as may be authorized by the Administrative 
Office of the Courts. 



Entitlement of Indigents to Counsel 

A person is "indigent" if "financially unable to secure 
legal representation." An indigent person is entitled to 
State-paid legal representation in the proceedings listed 
in G.S. 7A-451, including any case in which imprison- 
ment or a fine of $500 or more is likely to be adjudged; 
juvenile proceedings which may result in confinement, 
transfer to superior court for trial on a felony charge, or 
termination of parental rights; proceedings alleging 
mental illness or incapacity which may result in hospital- 
ization or sterilization; extradition proceedings; certain 
probation or parole revocation hearings; and certain 
requests for post-conviction relief from a criminal 
judgment. 

In public defender districts, most representation of 
indigents is handled by the public defender's office. 
However, in certain circumstances, such as a potential 
conflict of interest, the court or the public defender may 
assign private counsel to represent an indigent. In areas 
of the state that are not served by a public defender 
office, indigents are represented by private counsel 
assigned by the court. 



Expenditures 

A total of $6,262,395 was expended for operation of 
the eleven public defender offices during 1990-91. 



1990-91 Caseload 

The eleven public defender offices disposed of cases 
involving a total of 35,809 defendants during 1990-91. 
This was an increase of 3,725 defendants, or 1 1 .6%, over 
the 32,084 defendants represented to disposition during 
1989-90. 

Additional information concerning the operation of 
these offices is found in Part III of this Annual Report. 



Public Defenders 
(As of June 30, 1991) 

District 3A (Pitt County) 

Robert L. Shoffner, Jr., Greenville 

District 3B (Carteret County) 
Henry C. Boshamer, Beaufort 

District 12 (Cumberland County) 
Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville 

District 14 (Durham County) 
Robert E. Brown, Jr., Durham 

District 15B (Orange and Chatham Counties) 
James E. Williams, Jr., Carrboro 

District 16A (Scotland and Hoke Counties) 
J. Graham King, Laurinburg 

District 16B (Robeson County) 

Angus B. Thompson, II, Lumberton 

District 18 (Guilford County) 
Wallace C. Harrelson, Greensboro 

District 26 (Mecklenburg County) 
Isabel S. Day, Charlotte 

District 27A (Gaston County) 
Rowell C. Cloninger, Jr., Gastonia 

District 28 (Buncombe County) 
J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville 



*The public defender in District 16B is appointed by the resident superior court judge of Superior Court District 16B other than the senior resident 
superior court judge, from a list of not less than three names submitted by written ballot of the licensed attorneys who reside in the district. 



57 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS 



The Association of Public Defenders 

(Officers as of June 30, 1991) 

Grady Jessup, President 
Robert Ward, Vice-President 
Ann Toney, Secretary-Treasurer 




Grady Jessup 



THE OFFICE OF THE APPELLATE DEFENDER 

(Staff as of June 30, 1991) 

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender 

Assistant Appellate Defenders 

M. Patricia DeVine Mark D. Montgomery 

Benjamin Sendor Daniel R. Pollitt 

Staples S. Hughes M. Gordon Widenhouse 

Teresa McHugh Constance H. Everhart 



The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a 
State-funded program on October 1 , 198 1 . (Prior to that 
date, appellate defender services were funded by a one- 
year federal grant.) The 1985 General Assembly made 
permanent the Appellate Defender Office by repealing 
its expiration provision. In accord with the assignments 
made by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the 
Appellate Defender and staff to provide criminal defense 
appellate services to indigent persons who are appealing 
their convictions to the North Carolina Supreme Court, 
the North Carolina Court of Appeals, or to federal 
courts. 

The Office of the Appellate Defender, through a com- 
bination of state and federal funding, also provides 
assistance to attorneys representing defendants in capital 
cases, and acts as counsel for defendants in other capital 
trials and post-conviction proceedings. 



The Appellate Defender is appointed by and carries 
out the duties of the Office under the general supervision 
of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may, consistent 
with the resources available to the Appellate Defender 
and to insure quality criminal defense services, authorize 
certain appeals to be assigned to a local public defender 
office or to private assigned counsel instead of to the 
Appellate Defender. 

1990-91 Caseload 

The Office of the Appellate Defender accepted ap- 
pointment in a total of 134 appeals or petitions for writ 
of certiorari during the 1990-91 year. The Appellate 
Defender Office filed a total of 158 briefs in the North 
Carolina Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of 
North Carolina during the 1990-91 year. 




Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr. 



COURT-ORDERED ARBITRATION 



History 

In 1986, the General Assembly enacted legislation 
authorizing the Supreme Court to establish an experi- 
mental program of court-ordered non-binding arbitra- 
tion for claims for money damages of $15,000 or less. 
The Supreme Court adopted rules and on January 1, 
1987. a controlled experiment in arbitration began in the 
three pilot sites designated by the Court: Judicial Dis- 
tricts 3, 14, and 29. Based on the success of the pilot 
program, the General Assembly enacted legislation 
during the 1989 Session authorizing court-ordered, non- 
binding arbitration statewide. 



Program Summary 

Under G.S. 7A-37.1 and the Supreme Court Rules for 
Court-Ordered Arbitration in North Carolina, all cases 
involving claims for money damages of $15,000 or less 
are eligible for arbitration. Specifically excluded from 
arbitration are certain property disputes, family law 
matters, estates, special proceedings, and class actions. 
Parties may, however, voluntarily submit any other civil 
dispute to arbitration. 

By rule, the arbitration hearing is conducted within 
60 days of the filing of the last responsive pleading. 
Parties may stipulate to an arbitrator, but in the absence 



of any stipulation, the court appoints an arbitrator from 
its list. To appear on this list, an arbitrator must be a 
member of the North Carolina State Bar for at least five 
years, undergo arbitrator training, and be designated by 
the senior resident superior court judge and the chief 
district court judge. The arbitrator is paid a $75 fee by 
the court for each arbitration hearing. 

Arbitration hearings are as a rule limited to one hour, 
and take place in the courthouse. The hearings are con- 
ducted in a serious but relaxed atmosphere, with the 
rules of evidence serving as a guide. Once concluded, the 
arbitrator renders an award, which is filed with the 
court. A party dissatisfied with the award may proceed 
to a trial de novo by filing a written request with the 
court within thirty days of the award. If no action is 
taken during this period, the court enters judgment on 
the award. 

Program Operation 

In the spring of 1990, arbitration was introduced into 
additional judicial districts. During 1990-91, arbitration 
programs were operating in twelve superior court dis- 
tricts. Fiscal year 1990-91 represents the first full year of 
operation for the expanded program. Data on cases 
noticed for arbitration and on disposition of those cases 
are shown in the following table. 



60 



SUMMARY OF ARBITRATION ACTIVITY 
July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Cases Noticed for Arbitration* 



Summary of De Novo Appeal Activity 





District 
Court 


Superior 
Court 


Total 


Cases 
Arbitrated 


De Novo 

Appeals 

Filed 


Trials 


Dismissal/ 
Other 


Pending 
6/30/91 


District 3A 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 


167 

208 

40 


5 
4 



172 

212 

40 


80 
115 

14 


10 

14 

1 



4 



3 
4 



7 
6 
1 


District Totals 


415 


9 


424 


209 


25 


4 


7 


14 


District 3B 

Pitt 


296 


4 


300 


123 


14 


6 


5 


3 


District 14 

Durham 


393 


22 


415 


276 


76 


5 


23 


48 


District 15A 

Alamance 


90 





90 


66 


8 


3 


2 


3 


District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 


23 
103 






23 
103 


14 
69 


4 
18 


2 
6 


1 
8 


1 
4 


District Totals 


126 





126 


83 


22 


8 


9 


5 


District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 


8 
85 






8 
85 


2 
60 



18 



3 




4 



11 


District Totals 


93 





93 


62 


18 


3 


4 


11 


District 25A 

Burke 

Caldwell 


114 
114 


2 
2 


116 
116 


103 
80 


15 

23 


2 
2 


2 
6 


11 

15 


District Totals 


228 


4 


232 


183 


38 


4 


8 


26 


District 25B 

Catawba 


208 


10 


218 


158 


47 


5 


10 


32 


District 27A 

Gaston 


255 


105 


360 


252 


83 


16 


28 


39 



*Cases in which parties are notified, at the conclusion of the pleadings phase, that a case has been assigned to court-ordered 
arbitration. 



61 



Summary of Arbitration Activity, Continued 



Cases Noticed for Arbitration* 



Summary of De Novo Appeal Activity 













De Novo 










District 


Superior 




Cases 


Appeals 




Dismissal/ 


Pending 




Court 


Court 


Total 


Arbitrated 


Filed 


Trials 


Other 


6/30/91 


District 29 


















Henderson 


88 


4 


92 


73 


27 


1 


2 


24 


McDowell 


25 


4 


29 


25 


9 


2 


1 


6 


Polk 


10 





10 


8 


4 








4 


Rutherford 


33 


2 


35 


29 


4 


1 





3 


Transylvania 


26 


2 


28 


19 


3 








3 


District Totals 


182 


12 


194 


154 


47 


4 


3 


40 


District 30A 


















Cherokee 


21 





21 


10 


1 








1 


Clay 


14 





14 


8 














Graham 


9 


1 


10 


3 


2 








2 


Macon 


12 





12 


11 


3 








3 


Swain 


24 





24 


11 














District Totals 


80 


1 


81 


43 


6 








6 


District 30B 


















Haywood 


49 


1 


50 


41 


9 








9 


Jackson 


38 





38 


27 


10 








10 


District Totals 


87 


1 


88 


68 


19 








19 


TOTALS 


2,453 


168 


2,621 


1,677 


403 


58 


99 


246 



(24% of 
cases 
arbitrated) 

♦Cases in which parties are notified, at the conclusion of the pleadings phase, that a case has been assigned to court-ordered 

arbitration. 



62 



CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION MEDIATION 



History 

In 1983, the General Assembly enacted legislation 
establishing a child custody mediation pilot program in 
the 26th Judicial District, and expanded the pilot pro- 
gram in 1987 to include a second judicial district, 
District 27A. Charged by the General Assembly to report 
on the pilot program during the 1989 Session, the Direc- 
tor of the Administrative Office of the Courts recom- 
mended the use of mediation statewide for custody and 
visitation issues pending in the courts. Based on this 
recommendation and the experience in the pilot sites, the 
General Assembly enacted legislation during the 1989 
Session authorizing mediation of custody and visitation 
issues in domestic relations cases statewide. 



Program Summary 

Under G.S. 50-13.1 and G.S. 7A-494, the court may 
refer contested custody and visitation issues raised in a 
domestic case to mediation before those issues are tried. 
The mediation process is designed to provide a struc- 
tured, confidential, nonadversarial setting that will facili- 
tate the cooperative resolution of custody and visitation 
disputes and minimize the stress and anxiety to which 
the parties, especially the child, are subjected. 

In mediation, the parties, assisted by a neutral third 
party, attempt to construct an agreement to provide for 



the care and custody that is in their children's best 
interest. The mediator's role is one of facilitator and 
educator. Professionally trained in mediation techniques, 
the mediator is neutral and objective, assisting in the 
discussion process to ensure that the parties consider all 
contested issues in a constructive context. The mediator 
is required to hold a graduate degree in a human 
relations field and to have experience in child develop- 
ment and family dynamics so that the issues are resolved 
with the children's best interests as the central focus. 

If the parents are successful in resolving some or all of 
the contested custody and visitation issues through 
mediation, the mediator assists them in drafting a 
parenting agreement. Parties are then encouraged to 
have the agreement reviewed by their attorneys. Once 
signed by the parties, the parenting agreement is entered 
by the court as an enforceable order. 

Program Operation 

In the spring of 1990, custody mediation was intro- 
duced into a third judicial district, District 12, bringing 
the number of custody mediation districts to three. Fiscal 
year 1990-91 represents the first full year of operation for 
the expanded program. Data on cases referred for 
mediation and on the disposition of those cases are 
shown in the following table. 



63 



CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION MEDIATION ACTIVITY 
July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



District 12 

Cumberland 



Cases Mediated 



No 
Begin Agree- Agree- 

Pending Cases ment ment 

7/1/90 Referred Reached Reached Total 



388 



66 



29 



95 



Cases Not Mediated 

Total End 

Completing Pending 

Removed 1 Settled 2 Total Process 6/30/91 



107 



17 



224 



319 



70 



District 26 

Mecklenburg 



59 



303 135 113 



248 



44 



27 71 319 43 



District 27A 

Gaston 



81 



206 



59 



95 



154 



37 



21 



58 212 



75 



TOTALS 



141 



897 260 237 497 



188 



165 353 850 188 



"Removed" cases include: (a) cases in which the mediator determined the case was inappropriate (e.g., allegations of domestic violence); 
(b) cases in which the parties chose not to mediate after going through the orientation session; (c) cases in which one or both parties failed 
to appear for mediation; and (d) cases in which parties are deployed for military actions and cases exempted because a party resides more 
than 50 miles from the courthouse. 
2 "Settled" cases include those reported settled through consent agreement and those in which the parties reconciled. 



64 



THE NORTH CAROLINA COURTS COMMISSION 



(Members as of June 30, 1991) 



Appointed by the Governor 

Johnathan L. Rhyne, Jr., Lincolnton, Chairman 
Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Clyde M. Roberts, Marshall 

Garland N. Yates, Asheboro 
District Attorney 

Harold J. Long, Yadkinville 
Clerk of Court 

Dan R. Simpson, Morganton 
Member, N.C. State Senate 

Appointed by President of the Senate 
(Lieutenant Governor) 

Russell J. Hollers, Troy 

Alfred M. Goodwin, Louisburg 

R. C. Soles, Jr., Tabor City 
Member, N.C. Senate 

Lillian O. Briant, Asheboro 

Austin M. Allran, Hickory 
Member, N.C. State Senate 

William H. Barker, Oriental 

Member, N.C. State Senate 

Ex-Officio (Non-Voting) 

O. William Faison, Raleigh 
N.C. Bar Association Representative 

Z. Creighton Brinson, Tarboro 
N.C. State Bar Representative 

Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Raleigh 
Administrative Officer of the Courts 



Appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives 

Roy A. Cooper, III, Rocky Mount 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Robert C. Hunter, Marion 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Dennis A. Wicker, Sanford 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

David T. Flaherty, Jr., Lenoir 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Charles L. Cromer, Thomasville 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Nancy C. Patteson, Wilson 

Appointed by the Chief Justice of the 
N.C. Supreme Court 

Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Raleigh 
Associate Justice, N.C. Supreme Court 

Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte 
Judge, N.C. Court of Appeals 

J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham 
Superior Court Judge 

W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro 
Superior Court Judge 

Larry B. Langson, Gastonia 
District Court Judge 

Patricia Hunt, Chapel Hill 
District Court Judge 



65 



THE NORTH CAROLINA COURTS COMMISSION 



The North Carolina Courts Commission was reestab- 
lished by the 1979 General Assembly "to make continu- 
ing studies of the structure, organization, jurisdiction, 
procedures and personnel of the Judicial Department 
and oi the General Court of Justice and to make 
recommendations to the General Assembly for such 
changes therein as will facilitate the administration of 
justice." Initially, the Commission consisted of 15 voting 
members, with five each appointed by the Governor, the 
President of the Senate (Lieutenant Governor), and the 
Speaker of the House. The Commission also had three 
ex officio members. 

The 1981 General Assembly amended the statutes 
pertaining to the Courts Commission, to increase the 
number of voting members from 15 to 23, with the 
Governor to appoint seven voting members, the Presi- 
dent of the Senate to appoint eight voting members, and 
the Speaker of the House to appoint eight voting 
members. The non-voting ex officio members remained 
the same: a representative of the North Carolina Bar 
Association, a representative of the North Carolina 
State Bar, and the Administrative Officer of the Courts. 

The 1983 Session of the General Assembly further 
amended G.S. 7A-506, to revise the voting membership 
of the Commission. Effective July 1, 1983, the Commis- 
sion consists of 24 voting members, six to be appointed 
by the Governor; six to be appointed by the Speaker of 



the House; six to be appointed by the President of the 
Senate; and six to be appointed by the Chief Justice of 
the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Governor 
continues to appoint the Chairman of the Commission, 
from among its legislative members. The non-voting ex 
officio membership of three persons remains the same. 

Of the six appointees of the Chief Justice, one is to be 
a Justice of the Supreme Court, one is to be a Judge of 
the Court of Appeals, two are to be judges of superior 
court, and two are to be judges of district court. 

Of the six appointees of the Governor, one is to be a 
district attorney, one a practicing attorney, one a clerk of 
superior court, and three are to be members or former 
members of the General Assembly and at least one of 
these shall not be an attorney. 

Of the six appointees of the Speaker of the House, at 
least three are to be practicing attorneys, and three are to 
be members or former members of the General Assem- 
bly, and at least one of these three is not to be an 
attorney. 

Of the six appointees of the President of the Senate, at 
least three are to be practicing attorneys, three are to be 
members or former members of the General Assembly, 
and at least one is to be a magistrate. 

As no funds were appropriated for the Courts Com- 
mission for the 1990-91 fiscal year, the Commission did 
not meet. 



66 



THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 



(Members as of June 30, 1991) 



Appointed by the Chief Justice 

Court of Appeals Judge Clifton E. Johnson, 
Charlotte, Chairman 

Superior Court Judge Robert D. Lewis, 
Asheville 

District Court Judge A. Elizabeth Keever, 
Fayetteville 



Appointed by the Governor 

Albert E. Partridge, Jr., Concord, Secretary 
Margaret H. Almond, Charlotte 



Elected by the Council of the N.C. State Bar 

Louis J. Fisher, Jr., High Point, Vice-Chairman 
William K. Davis, Winston-Salem 



Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary 




Judge Clifton E. Johnson 



67 



THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 
July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



The Judicial Standards Commission was established 
by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional 
amendment approved by the voters at the general elec- 
tion in November 1972. 

Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Su- 
preme Court may censure or remove any judge for 
willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure 
to perform his or her duties, habitual intemperance, 
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that 
brings the judicial office into disrepute. In addition, 
upon recommendation of the Commission, the Supreme 
Court may remove any judge for mental or physical 
incapacity interfering with the performance of duties, 
which is, or is likely to become, permanent. 

Where a recommendation for censure or removal 
involves a justice of the Supreme Court, the recommen- 
dation and supporting record is filed with the Court of 
Appeals which has and proceeds under the same author- 
ity for censure or removal of a judge. Such a proceeding 
would be heard by the Chief Judge of the Court of 
Appeals and the six judges senior in service, excluding 
the Court of Appeals judge who by law serves as the 
Chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission. 

In addition to a recommendation of censure or 
removal, the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary 
measure known as a reprimand. The reprimand is a 
mechanism administratively developed for dealing with 
inquiries where the conduct does not warrant censure or 
removal, but where some action is justified. Since the 
establishment of the Judicial Standards Commission in 
1973, reprimands have been issued in 20 instances cover- 
ing 26 inquiries. 

During the July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 fiscal year, the 
Judicial Standards Commission met on October 5, 
November 30, January 1 1, and April 5. 



A complaint or other information against a judge, 
whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the 
Commission on its own motion, is designated as an 
"Inquiry Concerning a Judge." Twenty-three such in- 
quiries were pending as of July 1, 1990, and 96 inquiries 
were filed during the fiscal year, giving the Commission 
a total workload of 119 inquiries. 

During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 
84 inquiries, and 35 inquiries remained pending at the 
end of the fiscal year. 

The determinations of the Commission regarding the 
84 inquiries disposed of during the fiscal year were as 
follows: 

( 1) 67 inquiries were determined to involve evidentiary 
rulings, length of sentences, or other matters not 
within the Commission's jurisdiction, rather than 
questions of judicial misconduct; 

(2) 4 inquiries were determined to involve allegations 
of conduct which did not rise to such a level as 
would warrant investigation by the Commission; 

(3) 8 inquiries were determined to warrant no further 
action following completion of preliminary investi- 
gations; 

(4) 2 inquiries were consolidated with others for inves- 
tigation; 

(5) 1 inquiry resulted in a private reprimand; 

(6) 1 inquiry resulted in a recommendation of censure; 
and 

(7) 1 inquiry resulted in a recommendation of removal. 
Of the 35 inquiries pending at the end of the fiscal 

year: 

(1) 28 inquiries were awaiting initial review by the 
Commission; and 

(2) 7 inquiries were awaiting completion of a prelim- 
inary investigation or were subject to other action 
by the Commission. 



68 



PART III 



COURT RESOURCES 

• Financial 

• Personnel 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Under the State Constitution, the operating expenses 
of the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts), 
"other than compensation to process servers and other 
locally paid non-judicial officers," are required to be 
paid from State funds. It is customary legislative practice 
for the General Assembly to include appropriations for 
the operating expenses of all three branches of State 
government in a single budget bill, for a two-year period 
ending on June 30 of the odd-numbered years. The 
budget for the second year of the biennium is generally 
modified during the even-year legislative session. 

Building facilities for the appellate courts are provided 
by State funds, but, by statute, the county governments 
are required to use county funds to provide adequate 
facilities for the trial courts within each of the 100 
counties. 



Appropriations from the State's General Fund for 
operating expenses for all departments and agencies of 
State government, including the Judicial Department, 
totaled $7,166,795,044 for the 1990-91 fiscal year. 
(Appropriations from the Highway Fund and appropria- 
tions from the General Fund for capital improvements 
and debt servicing are not included in this total.) 

The appropriation from the General Fund for the 
operating expenses of the Judicial Department for 1990- 
91 was $205,610,446. (This included $1,947,087 paid in 
July 1991 for accrued attorney fees for indigent 
defendants.) As illustrated in the chart below, this 
General Fund appropriation for the Judicial Department 
equaled 2.87% of the General Fund appropriations for 
the operating expenses of all State agencies and depart- 
ments. 




JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 

APPROPRIATION 

$205,610,446 

2.87% 



71 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATIONS 



Appropriations from the State's General Fund for 
operating expenses of the Judicial Department over the 
past seven fiscal years are shown in the table below and 
in the graph at the top of the following page. For 
comparative purposes, appropriations from the General 



Fund for operating expenses of all State agencies and 
departments (including the Judicial Department) for the 
last seven fiscal years are also shown in the table below 
and in the second graph on the following page. 



APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES 



Judicial Department 



All State Agencies 



Fiscal Year 

1984-1985 
1985-1986 
1986-1987 
1987-1988 
1988-1989 
1989-1990 
1990-1991 





% Increase over 




% Increase over 


Appropriation 


previous year 


Appropriation 


previous year 


121,035,791 


13.99 


4,237,230,681 


14.93 


134,145,813 


10.83 


4,780,073,721 


12.81 


146,394,689 


9.13 


5,153,322,580 


7.81 


161,128,433 


10.06 


5,715,172,032 


10.90 


175,864,518 


9.14 


6,226,556,573 


8.95 


200,807,719 


14.18 


6,800,504,598 


9.28 


205,610,446 


2.39 


7,166,795,044 


5.39 



AVERAGE ANNUAL 
INCREASE, 1985-1991 



9.96% 



10.01% 



72 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATIONS 



General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses 
Of the Judicial Department, 1984-85 — 1990-91 



$210,000,000 

180,000,000 

150,000,000 

120,000,000 

90,000,000 

60,000,000 

30,000,000 





$205,610,446 




1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 



1987-88 



1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 



18,000,000,000 
7,000,000,000 
6,000,000,000 
5,000,000,000 
4,000,000,000 
3,000,000,000 
2,000,000,000 
1,000,000,000 




General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses 
Of All State Agencies and Departments, 1984-85 — 1990-91 



$7,166,795,044 



$6,800,504,598 



$6,226,556,573 



$5,715,172,032 



$5,153,322,580 



$4,780,073,721 
$4,237,230,681 




1984-85 1985-86 



73 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES 
July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



General Fund expenditures for operating expenses of 
the Judicial Department during the 1990-91 fiscal year 



totaled $208,070,175, divided among the major budget 
classifications as shown below. 



Supreme Court 

Court of Appeals 

Superior Courts 

District Courts 

Clerks of Superior Court 

Juvenile Probation and Aftercare 

Representation for Indigents 
Assigned private counsel 
Guardian ad litem for juveniles 

Guardian ad litem — volunteer and contract program 
Public defenders 

Special counsel at mental health hospitals 
Support services (expert witness fees, 

professional examinations, transcripts) 
Appellate Defender Services 
Indigency Screening 
Appellate Defender Resource Center 
Capital Case Rehearing Fund 

District Attorney Offices 
Office — District Attorney 
District Attorneys' Conference 

Administrative Office of the Courts 
General Administration 
Information Services 
Warehouse & Printing 

Judicial Standards Commission 

Dispute Resolution Programs 
Custody Mediation 
Dispute Settlement Center 
Arbitration Program 

Sentencing & Policy Advisory Commission 

Grant Supported Projects 

Dept. of Crime Control & Public Safety 
Governor's Highway Safety Program 
Miscellaneous 

TOTAL 







%of 




Amount 


Total 




$ 2,909,823 


1.40 




3,778,530 


1.82 




19,102,345 


9.18 




37,918,302 


18.22 




63,509,953 


30.52 




14,507,797 


6.97 




29,383,562 


14.12 


17,728,746 






53,335 






2,848,147 






6,262,395 






322,999 






836,485 






689,216 






421,723 






213,093 






7,423 








24,131,863 


11.60 


24,021,147 






110,716 








11,207,704 


5.39 


5,599,718 






5,178,352 






429,634 








79,623 


.04 




806,504 


.39 


140,471 






389,660 






276,373 








214,948 


.10 




519,221 


.25 


477,336 






31,512 






10,373 








$208,070,175 


100.00% 



74 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES 
July 1, 1990 — June 30, 1991 



DISTRICT COUl 

18.22% 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 
OF THE COURTS 

5.39% 



SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY 
COMMISSION 0.10% 



REPRESENTATION FOR 
INDIGENTS 14.12% 

JUDICIAL STANDARDS 
COMMISSION 0.04% 

JUVENILE 
SERVICES 6.97% 
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 
PROGRAMS 0.39% 




DISTRICT ATTORNEY PROGRAMS 

1 1 .60% 



GRANT SUPPORTED PROJECTS 

0.25% 



SUPERIOR COURTS 

9.18% 



SUPREME COURT 1.40% 
COURT OF APPEALS 1.82% 



CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 30.52% 



As the above chart illustrates, most (57.92%) of Judi- 
cial Department expenditures goes for operation of the 
State's trial courts: operation of superior courts took 
9.18% of total expenditures; the district courts (including 
magistrates, judges and court reporters) took 18.22% of 
the total; and the clerks' offices, 30.52% of the total. 



Expenditures for district attorneys' programs represented 
11.60% of total Judicial Department expenditures, and 
representation for indigents required 14.12%. 

The total General Fund expenditure for the Judicial 
Department for 1990-91 was $208,070,175. 



$210,000,000 

180,000,000 

150,000,000 

120,000,000 

90,000,000 

60,000,000 

30,000,000 



General Fund Expenditures For The Judicial Department 
1984-85 - 1990-91 



$208,070,175 



$188,202,292 



$122,061,777 $136,029,696 




1984-85 1985-86 



1986-87 1987 



989-90 



1990-91 



Note: Expenditures data for 1989-90 do not include payroll (salary and benefits) for state employees for June 1990. The 
June 1990 payroll was disbursed in July 1990, which is fiscal 1990-91. Consequently, "total" expenditure data for 
1989-90 include only 1 1 months of payroll, and are not comparable to such data for other years.) 



75 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT RECEIPTS 
July 1, 1990 — June 30, 1991 



Receipts for the Judicial Department in the 1990-91 
fiscal year totaled $124,844,680. The several sources of 
these receipts are shown in the table below. As in the 



previous years, the major source of receipts were General 
Court of Justice Fees paid by litigants in superior and 
district court. 



Source of Receipts 



Amount 



Supreme Court Fees 


$ 7,645 


Court of Appeals Fees 


33,871 


Miscellaneous 


126,077 


Grants 


209,735 


Sales of Appellate Division Reports 


222,258 


Equipment Obligation Carryover 


287,887 


Jail Fees 


773,036 


Department of Crime Control 


860,329 


Interest on Checking Account 


1,146,990 


Ten-Day License Revocation Fees 


1,265,186 


Indigent Representation Judgments 


3,088,426 


Officer Fees 


6,124,267 


LEOB Fees 


7,575,204 


Judicial Facilities Fees 


8,072,389 


Federal — Child Support Enforcement 


8,253,871 


Fines and Forfeitures 


32,090,124 


General Court of Justice Fees 


54,707,385 


Total 


$124,844,680 



This total of $124,844,680 is an increase of 4. 58% over 
the total 1989-90 receipts of $119,381,775. The graph 



%of 
Total 

.006 

.027 

.101 

.168 

.178 

.231 

.619 

.689 

.919 

1.013 

2.474 

4.906 

6.068 

6.466 

6.611 

25.704 

43.820 

100.000% 



below shows the increase in total Judicial Department 
receipts over the last seven fiscal years. 



Judicial Department Receipts, 1984-85 — 1990-91 



$124,844,680 



$140,000,000 



105,000,000 



70,000,000 



35,000,000 




1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-* 



1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 



76 



DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT RECEIPTS 
July 1,1990- June 30, 1991 



As required by the State Constitution, fines, penalties 
and forfeitures collected by the courts in criminal cases 
are distributed to the respective counties in which the 
cases are tried. These funds must be used by the counties 
for the support of the public schools. 

A uniform schedule of civil and criminal court costs, 
comprising a variety of fees, is set by statute for cases 
filed in the superior and district courts. Statutes prescribe 
the distribution of these fees and provide that certain 
fees shall be devoted to specific uses. For example, a 
facilities fee is included in court costs when costs are 
assessed, and this fee is paid over to the respective 
county or municipality that provided the facility used in 
the case. These fees must be utilized by the counties and 
municipalities to provide and maintain courtrooms and 
related judicial facilities. 

Officer fees (for arrest or service of process) are 
included, where applicable, in the cost of each case filed 
in the trial courts. If a municipal officer performed these 
services in a case, the fee is paid over to the respective 
municipality. Otherwise, all officer fees are paid to the 
respective counties in which the cases are filed. 

A jail fee is included in the costs of each case where 
applicable; these fees are distributed to the respective 
county or municipality whose facilities were used. Most 
jail facilities in the State are provided by the counties. 
The county also receives fees paid by convicted defendants 



when they are released to the supervision of an agency 
providing pretrial release services in that county. 

A fee for the Law Enforcement Officers' Benefit and 
Retirement Fund is included as a part of court costs 
when costs are assessed in a criminal case. As required 
by statute, the Judicial Department remits these fees to 
the State Treasurer, for deposit in the Law Enforcement 
Officers' Benefit and Retirement Fund. 

Except as indicated, all superior and district court 
costs collected by the Judicial Department are paid into 
the State's General Fund, as are appellate court fees and 
proceeds from the sales of appellate division reports. 

When private counsel or a public defender is assigned 
to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal case, the 
trial judge sets the money value for the services rendered. 
If the defendant is convicted, a judgment lien is entered 
against him/her for such amount. Collections on these 
judgments are paid into and retained by the department 
to defray the costs of legal representation of indigents. 

Proceeds from the ten-day driver's license revocation 
fee, which driving-while-impaired offenders must pay to 
recover their driver's licenses, are distributed to the 
counties. 

Since fiscal year 1987-88, the Federal Government has 
been funding a portion of child support enforcement 
costs. 



Remitted to State Treasurer 

Supreme Court Fees 
Court of Appeals Fees 
Sales of Appellate Division Reports 
LEOB Fees 

General Court of Justice Fees 
Federal-Child Support Enforcement 
Total to State Treasurer 

Distributed to Counties 

Fines and Forfeitures 
Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 

Ten-Day License Revocation Fees 
Total to Counties 

Distributed to Counties and Beneficiaries 

Interest on Checking Accounts 

Distributed to Municipalities 

Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 

Total to Municipalities 

Operating Receipts 

Collection on Indigent Representation Judgments 
1989-90 Equipment Obligation Carryover 
Department of Crime Control 
Federal-Child Support Enforcement 
Grants 

Miscellaneous 
Total Retained for Operations 

GRAND TOTAL 





', of 


Amount 


Total 


7,645 


.006 


33,871 


.027 


222,258 


.178 


7,575,204 


6.068 


54,707,385 


43.820 


8,110,251 


6.496 


70,656,614 


56.595 


32,090,124 


25.704 


7,746,000 


6.205 


3,944,404 


3.160 


757,385 


.607 


1,265,186 


1.013 


45,803,099 


36.689 



1,146,990 



.919 



326,389 


.261 


2,179,863 


1.746 


15,651 


.012 


2,521,903 


2.019 


3,088,426 


2.474 


287,887 


.231 


860,329 


.689 


143,620 


.115 


209,735 


.168 


126,077 


.101 


4,716,074 


3.778 


4,844,680 


100.000 



77 



Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and 
Distributed to Counties and Municipalities* 

July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 




County 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


TOTAL 


Alamance 


$147,791 


$ 74,829 


$ 27,826 


$ 475,298 


$ 


$ 43,945 


$ 


$ 769,689 


Alexander 


18,501 


10,880 


4,216 


57,554 





587 





91,738 


Alleghany 


8,661 


6,385 


3,894 


44,005 





384 





63,329 


Anson 


27,956 


16,974 





161,065 





1,930 


672 


208,597 


Ashe 


19,067 


16,796 


4,084 


71,839 





1,776 





113,562 


Avery 


16,615 


13,942 


589 


65,164 





1,092 





97,402 


Beaufort 


67,606 


55,265 


24,308 


262,708 





13,638 





423,525 


Bertie 


25,189 


22,723 


2,875 


129,596 





494 





180,877 


Bladen 


47,155 


42,394 


2,463 


223,251 


353 


3,884 





319,500 


Brunswick 


56,954 


37,203 


120 


209,300 


700 


18,470 





322,747 


Buncombe 


187,882 


131,986 


1,232 


900,949 





30,866 





1,252,915 


Burke 


S9.201 


39,237 


9,039 


373,727 





9,678 





520,882 


Cabarrus 


114,854 


63,706 


22,773 


561,549 


3,867 


52,590 





819,339 


Caldwell 


65,440 


25,755 


10,702 


376,772 





15,004 





493,673 


Camden 


10,272 


9,417 


150 


56,835 











76,674 


Carteret 


71,078 


37,531 


1,112 


277,159 





19,768 





406,648 


Caswell 


17,335 


16,150 


1,314 


116,016 


9 


177 





151,001 


Catawba 


74,517 


44,895 


11,876 


624,358 


40,790 


25,714 





822,150 


Chatham 


36,487 


42,829 


3,840 


203,797 


13,001 


1,135 


195 


301,284 


Cherokee 


19,816 


19,141 


6,125 


110,288 





1,742 





157,112 


Chowan 


21,912 


19,702 


2,361 


86,683 





5,504 





136,162 


Clay 


6,442 


5,498 


1,932 


42,922 











56,794 


Cleveland 


88,117 


44,037 


24,243 


406,246 





8,415 





571,058 


Columbus 


55,832 


57,300 


5,737 


217,692 


2,309 


4,750 





343,620 


Craven 


85,192 


38,858 


15,077 


367,402 


2,784 


19,119 





528,432 


Cumberland 


286,654 


107,513 


26,255 


889,900 





68,827 





1,379,149 


Currituck 


28,142 


26,913 


3,654 


122,563 











181,272 


Dare 


73,749 


33,787 


7,875 


381,938 





28,068 





525,417 


Davidson 


104,320 


91,818 


10,180 


652,607 


21,290 


14,236 





894,451 


Davie 


32,795 


28,163 


3,950 


134,412 





29 





199,349 


Duplin 


45,456 


31,732 


8,982 


208,913 





1,129 


80 


296,292 


Durham 


240,985 


95,900 


1,414 


1,078,115 





88,139 





1,504,553 


Edgecombe 


63,107 


31,942 


16,255 


280,313 


39,112 


33,219 


530 


464,478 


Forsyth 


377,031 


33,058 


24,754 


1,276,757 


5,982 


166,248 





1,883,830 


Franklin 


34,382 


23,830 


3,653 


181,827 





404 





244,096 


Gaston 


153,815 


108,652 


3,794 


463,704 





24,279 





754,244 


Gates 


13,914 


12,245 


2,015 


61,423 











89,597 


Graham 


6,743 


5,870 


3,001 


37,546 





78 





53,238 


Granville 


51,056 


31,679 


10,191 


286,712 


108 


7,352 


370 


387,468 


Greene 


14,244 


11,742 


1,626 


71,991 











99,603 


Guilford 


479,900 


64,465 


13,238 


1,365,542 





199,630 





2,122,775 


Halifax 


70,597 


60,254 


9,877 


324,204 


3,586 


13,087 


60 


481,665 


Harnett 


61,041 


53,289 


12,424 


342,626 


12,156 


5,801 





487,337 


Haywood 


44,086 


36,186 


14,345 


251,158 


1,956 


3,900 





351,631 


Henderson 


70,582 


45,841 


3,209 


374,256 





2,968 





496,856 


Hertford 


28,261 


21,084 


3,835 


148,587 





2,096 





203,863 


Hoke 


29,276 


21,336 


6,227 


153,692 





2,451 





212,982 


Hyde 


7,763 


7,182 


1,528 


43,853 











60,326 


Iredell 


102,050 


59,706 


2,887 


539,646 


17,132 


22,615 


155 


744,191 


Jackson 


24,840 


21,811 


14,929 


144,069 











205,649 



78 



Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and 
Distributed to Counties and Municipalities* 

July 1, 1990 — June 30, 1991 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 




County 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


TOTAL 


Johnston 


$ 73,225 


$ 70,581 


$ 22,997 


$ 435,530 


$21,994 


$ 9,770 


$ 56 


$ 634,153 


Jones 


9,627 


7,241 


403 


31,638 





337 





49,246 


Lee 


68,277 


39,500 


26,834 


276,497 





21,120 





432,228 


Lenoir 


81,382 


39,563 


13,377 


357,540 





20,535 


1) 


512,397 


Lincoln 


39,795 


28,156 


8,761 


188,044 





4,836 





269,592 


Macon 


21,790 


17,098 


2,416 


132,735 





1,101 





175,140 


Madison 


13,761 


12,331 


1,227 


64,019 





733 





92,071 


Martin 


34,209 


27,361 


7,648 


132,411 





2,537 





204,166 


McDowell 


39,596 


30,004 


130 


160,425 





2,838 





232,993 


Mecklenburg 


637,764 


104,158 


33 


1,564,686 





411,729 





2,718,370 


Mitchell 


10,267 


6,751 


3,291 


39,219 





1,396 





60,924 


Montgomery 


36,189 


34,861 


4,840 


187,519 





1,537 





264,946 


Moore 


74,208 


54,210 


335 


445,787 


4,250 


15,065 





593,855 


Nash 


71,774 


83,790 


16,583 


417,429 


51,519 


34,542 


1,589 


677,226 


New Hanover 


149,252 


43,687 


3,024 


520,146 


240 


34,773 





751,122 


Northampton 


23,730 


22,312 


2,640 


144,871 


780 


1,975 





196,308 


Onslow 


136,139 


72,245 


22,388 


398,665 





56,104 





685,541 


Orange 


60,327 


56,005 


7,426 


332,928 


22,278 


15,584 


100 


494,648 


Pamlico 


7,863 


6,647 


924 


49,518 











64,952 


Pasquotank 


41.193 


20,847 


4,849 


197,144 





15,448 





279,481 


Pender 


30,535 


25,241 


5,356 


144,401 





1,384 





206,917 


Perquimans 


15,245 


12,354 


630 


68,399 





677 





97,305 


Person 


31,901 


26,644 


2,276 


158,050 





4,766 





223,637 


Pitt 


126,361 


49,479 


16,148 


522,413 


9,322 


48,055 


220 


771,998 


Polk 


14,210 


11,626 


305 


68,950 





87 





95,178 


Randolph 


96,146 


70,695 


6,214 


497,810 


4,039 


16,956 





691,860 


Richmond 


52,090 


30,255 


4,966 


338,993 





6,542 





432,846 


Robeson 


109,730 


86,433 


12,303 


719,674 


31,681 


33,068 


10 


992,899 


Rockingham 


104,330 


57,414 


7,085 


588,105 


6,377 


24,180 


(1 


787,491 


Rowan 


108,512 


70,638 


15,276 


563,345 





35,349 





793,120 


Rutherford 


62,365 


41,002 


5,266 


318,486 


o 


9,593 





436,712 


Sampson 


71,662 


62,406 


7,752 


272,770 





3,990 





418,580 


Scotland 


47,268 


32,774 


4,427 


267,559 





8,688 





360,716 


Stanly 


47,708 


21,410 


5,168 


301,574 





1 1 ,890 





387,750 


Stokes 


34,682 


27,592 


835 


198,552 





676 





262,337 


Surry 


71,278 


60,083 


2,198 


349,911 


1,200 


11,891 





496,561 


Swain 


11,874 


9,207 


2,115 


81,792 





641 


(1 


105,629 


Transylvania 


21,806 


22,178 


5,480 


103,070 





2,079 





154,613 


Tyrrell 


13,228 


12,058 


1,110 


63,902 


(1 








90,298 


Union 


87,271 


70,486 


9,845 


511,838 


11 


16,576 





696,016 


Vance 


73,195 


34,684 


12,007 


311,594 





1 1 ,662 





443,142 


Wake 


667,360 


84,080 


33,018 


i,898,006 


5,368 


255,932 


IS 


2,943,782 


Warren 


19,875 


18,115 


2,939 


97,699 





281 


(1 


138,909 


Washington 


17,829 


13,016 


3,400 


78,373 





2,370 





114,988 


Watauga 


33,788 


22,844 


3,574 


103,349 





5,610 





169,165 


Wayne 


110,489 


68,381 


13,011 


376,136 


2,206 


26,578 


11,596 


608,397 


Wilkes 


62,955 


43,768 


13,911 


312,699 





2,408 





435,741 


Wilson 


96,188 


82,977 


7,046 


283,994 


(1 


17,039 


o 


487,244 


Yadkin 


37,356 


29,007 


5,117 


170,660 


o 


3,130 


(1 


245,270 


Yancey 


13,734 


10,778 


495 


2,740 





587 





28,334 


State Totals 


$7,746,000 


$3,944,404 


$757,385 


$32,090,124 


$326,389 


$2,179,863 


$15,651 


$47,059,816 



*Facility and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and municipalities that furnished the facilities. If the officer who 
made the arrest or served the process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise all 
officer fees are distributed to the respective counties. By provision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected by the 
courts within a county are distributed to that county for support of the public schools. 



^o 



COST AND CASE DATA ON REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENTS 

July 1, 1990 — June 30, 1991 



The State provides legal counsel for indigent persons 
in a variety of actions and proceedings, as specified in 
the North Carolina General Statutes, Sections 7A-450 et 
seq. These include criminal proceedings, judicial hospital- 
ization proceedings, and juvenile proceedings which may 
result in commitment to an institution or transfer to 
superior court for trial as an adult. Legal representation 
for indigents may be by assignment of private counsel, 
by assignment of special public counsel (involving mental 
health hospital commitments), or by assignment of a 
public defender. 

Eleven defender districts, serving 13 counties, have an 
office of public defender: Districts 3 A, 3B, 12, 14, 15B, 
16A, 16B. 13, 26, 27A, and 28. Further details on these 
offices are given in Part II of this Annual Report. In 
areas of the State not served by a public defender office, 
representation of indigents is provided by assignments of 
private counsel. Private counsel may also be assigned in 
districts that have a public defender, in the event of a 
conflict of interest involving the public defender's office 
and the indigent, and in the event of unusual circum- 
stances when, in the opinion of the court, the proper 
administration of justfce requires the assignment of 
private counsel. 

The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a 
State-funded program on October 1, 1981. Pursuant to 
assignments made by trial court judges, it is the respon- 
sibility of the Appellate Defender and staff to provide 
criminal defense appellate services to indigent persons 
who are appealing their convictions to either the 
Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. The Appellate 
Defender is appointed by and is under the general 
supervision of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may, 
consistent with the resources available to the Appellate 
Defender and to insure quality criminal defense services, 
authorize certain appeals to be assigned to a local public 
defender office or to private assigned counsel instead of 



to the Appellate Defender. The cost data reported in the 
following table reflect the activities of this office in both 
the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1991. 

In addition, the State provides a full-time special 
counsel at each of the State's four mental health 
hospitals, to represent patients in commitment or re- 
commitment hearings before a district court judge. Under 
North Carolina law, each patient committed to a mental 
health hospital is entitled to a judicial hearing (before a 
district court judge) within 90 days after the initial 
commitment, a further hearing within 180 days after 
such re-commitment, and thereafter a hearing at least 
once each year during the continuance of an involuntary 
commitment. (Special procedures apply to persons 
committed to mental health hospitals following a finding 
of not guilty by reason of insanity.) 

A juvenile alleged to be within the jurisdiction of the 
court has the right to be represented by counsel in all 
proceedings; juveniles are conclusively presumed to be 
indigent and are entitled to state-appointed counsel 
(G.S. 7A-584). When a petition alleges that a juvenile is 
abused or neglected, the judge is required to appoint a 
guardian ad litem, and when a juvenile is alleged to be 
dependent, the judge may appoint a guardian ad litem. If 
the guardian ad litem is not an attorney, the judge in 
addition is to appoint an attorney to represent the 
juvenile's interests (G.S. 7A-586). Where a juvenile peti- 
tion alleges that a juvenile is abused, neglected or 
dependent, the parent has a right to appointed counsel in 
cases of indigency (G.S. 7A-587). 

The cost of all programs of indigent representation 
during the 1990-91 fiscal year totaled $29,383,562, which 
was 14.1% of total Judicial Department expenditures. 

Following is a summary of case and cost data for 
representation of indigents for the fiscal year July 1, 
1990 through June 30, 1991. 



80 



COST AND CASE DATA ON REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENTS 

July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Assigned Private Counsel 

Capital offense cases 
Adult cases (other than capital) 
Juvenile cases 
Totals 

Guardian ad Litem for Juveniles 

Guardian ad Litem Volunteer and 
Contract Program 

Public Defender Offices 

District 3A 

District 3B (Carteret County) 
District 12 
District 14 
District 15B 
District 16A 
District 16B 
District 18 
District 26 
District 27A 
District 28 
Totals 

Appellate Defender Office 

Appellate Defender Office 
Resource Center 

Special Counsel at State Mental Health Hospitals 

Support Services 

Transcripts, records and briefs 
Professional examinations 
Expert witness fees 
Total 

Indigency Screening 

Capital Case Rehearing Fund 

GRAND TOTAL 



Number 
of Cases* 

656 

59,514 

8,013 

68,183 

297 



Total 
Cost 

5 2,361,742 

14,129,811 

1,237,193 

17,728,746 

53,335 



2,848,147 



322,999 

533,005 

27,441 

276,039 

836,485 

421,723 

7,423 

$29,383,562 



Average 
Per Case 

$3,600 
237 
154 
260 

180 



1,194 


347,054 


291 


603 


128,807 


214 


3,054 


816,229 


267 


1,202 


339,921 


283 


1,321 


273,753 


207 


968 


282,458 


292 


1,672 


388,100 


232 


3,824 


1,035,754 


271 


15,966 


1,618,669 


101 


2,853 


587,150 


206 


3,152 


444,500 


141 


35,809 


6,262,395 

689,216 
213,093** 


175 



*The number of "cases" shown for private assigned counsel is the number of payments (checks) made by the Administrative Office 
of the Courts for appointed attorneys. For public defender offices, the number of "cases" is the number of indigents disposed of 
by public defenders during the 1990-91 year. 



**Of the total cost, $87,563 (41.1%) in federal grant funds were received for the operations of the Resource Center during 1990-91. 



STATE MENTAL HEALTH HOSPITAL COMMITMENT HEARINGS 

July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



The total cost of providing special counsel at each of 
the State's four mental health hospitals, to represent 
patients in commitment or recommitment hearings, was 
S322.999 for the 1990-91 fiscal year. There was a total of 
13.167 hearings held during the year, for an average cost 



per hearing of $24.53 for the special counsel service. 

The following table presents data on the hearings held 
at each of the mental health hospitals in 1990-91. There 
were two fewer hearings held in 1990-91 than in 1989-90, 
a negligible decrease. 



Broughton Cherry 



Initial Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Total 

First Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Total 

Second or Subsequent Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Total 

Modification of Prior Order Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Total 

Total Hearings or Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Grand Totals 



976 
1,141 
1,140 

3,257 



213 



396 



49 



3,915 



1,299 
282 
464 

2,045 



516 



400 



19 



2,980 



Dorothea 
Dix 

966 
242 
519 

1,727 



271 



333 



34 



2,365 



John 
Umstead 

1,503 
435 
449 

2,387 



603 



798 



119 



3,907 



Totals 



4,744 
2,100 

2,572 

9,416 



51 


339 


217 


490 


1,197 


27 


22 


14 


23 


86 


35 


155 


40 


90 


320 



1,603 



362 


394 


311 


723 


1,790 


3 


1 


4 


11 


19 


31 


5 


18 


64 


118 



1,927 



23 


3 


2 


26 


54 


19 


10 


13 


91 


133 


7 


6 


19 


2 


34 



221 



1,512 


2,035 


1,496 


2,742 


7,785 


1,190 


315 


273 


560 


2,338 


1,213 


630 


596 


605 


3,044 



13,167 



82 



ASSIGNED COUNSEL AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM 
Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



District 1 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


50 

202 
102 
352 

63 
517 

74 


16,060 
132,294 

31,309 
120,629 

50,136 
130,488 

18,952 


1 



6 

13 

1 

11 
5 


75 



520 

3,769 

478 

1,023 

370 


District Totals 


1,360 


499,868 


37 


6,235 


District 2 










Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 


519 
38 

197 
44 

99 


146,859 
12,706 
38,725 
11,385 
30,953 


2 
5 






260 

350 








District Totals 


897 


230,628 


7 


610 


District 3 A 










Pitt 


851 


357,593 


10 


3,490 


District Totals 


851 


357,593 


10 


3,490 


District 3B 










Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 


176 

979 

95 


68,253 

246,714 

26,313 


1 

2 



85 

3,600 




District Totals 


1,250 


341,280 


3 


3,685 


District 4 A 










Duplin 

Jones 

Sampson 


375 

45 

490 


141,017 

41,604 

141,096 


5 

2 


685 


200 


District Totals 


910 


323,717 


7 


885 


District 4B 










Onslow 


1,318 


384,962 


15 


1,240 


District Totals 


1,318 


384,962 


15 


1,240 


District 5 










New Hanover 
Pender 


2,062 

227 


580,089 
64,371 


3 



551 



District Totals 


2,289 


644,460 


3 


551 


District 6 A 










Halifax 


495 


139,447 








District Totals 


495 


139,447 








District 6B 










Bertie 

Hertford 

Northampton 


173 

273 
252 


65,631 

101,275 

94,081 


1 



1 


50 



200 


District Totals 


698 


260,987 


2 


250 



83 



ASSIGNED COUNSEL AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM 
Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



District 7 A 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Nash 


836 


272,644 


1 


25 


District Totals 


836 


272,644 


1 


25 


District 7B-C 










Edgecombe 
Wilson 


917 
889 


285,537 
300,305 


2 



1,984 



District Totals 


1,806 


585,842 


2 


1,984 


District 8 A 










Greene 
Lenoir 


105 
864 


78,311 
268,910 











District Totals 


969 


347,221 








District 8B 










Wayne 


1,191 


336,663 








District Totals 


1,191 


336,663 








District 9 










Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 


518 
557 
360 
868 
151 


146,886 
160,524 
101,951 
234,290 
44,160 






3 



1 






875 



75 


District Totals 


2,454 


687,811 


4 


950 


District 10 










Wake 


6,055 


1,359,472 








District Totals 


6,055 


1,359,472 








District 11 










Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


1,106 

1,442 

854 


250,880 
347,427 
167,466 












District Totals 


3,402 


765,773 








District 12 










Cumberland 


1,115 


390,995 


4 


1,125 


District Totals 


1,115 


390,995 


4 


1,125 


District 13 










Bladen 
Brunswick 

Columbus 


586 
630 
698 


160,497 
166,520 
152,246 


1 
1 
1 


75 
100 
200 


District Totals 


1,914 


479,263 


3 


375 


District 14 










Durham 


2,722 


615,058 


4 


750 


District Totals 


2,722 


615,058 


4 


750 



84 



ASSIGNED COUNSEL AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM 
Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



District 15 A 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Alamance 


1,204 


401,830 


15 


1,185 


District Totals 


1,204 


401,830 


15 


1,185 


District 15 B 










Chatham 
Orange 


93 

346 


28,027 
91,334 




4 



1,050 


District Totals 


439 


119,361 


4 


1,050 


District 16A 










Hoke 
Scotland 


31 
147 


8,075 
31,927 




3 




225 


District Totals 


178 


40,002 


3 


225 


District 16B 










Robeson 


658 


135,013 


11 


2,105 


District Totals 


658 


135,013 


11 


2,105 


District 17 A 










Caswell 
Rockingham 


192 
1,114 


42,544 
282,020 


10 
8 


900 
600 


District Totals 


1,306 


324,564 


18 


1,500 


District 17 B 










Stokes 
Surry 


302 
719 


110,591 

148,849 


20 



2,435 



District Totals 


1,021 


259,440 


20 


2,435 


District 18 










Guilford 


853 


311,070 


4 


1,325 


District Totals 


853 


311,070 


4 


1,325 


District 19 A 










Cabarrus 


840 


204,490 








District Totals 


840 


204,490 








District 19 B 










Montgomery 
Randolph 


273 
1,161 


75,072 
289,434 



13 



2,780 


District Totals 


1,434 


364,506 


13 


2,780 


District 19 C 










Rowan 


1,255 


266,508 


6 


675- 


District Totals 


1,255 


266,508 


6 


675 


District 20 A 










Anson 
Moore 
Richmond 


426 
1,065 
1,164 


137,738 
222,785 
245,352 



6 





800 




District Totals 


2,655 


605,875 


6 


800 



85 



ASSIGNED COUNSEL AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM 
Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



District JOB 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Stanly 
Union 


561 

937 


114,385 
209,173 




5 




750 


District Totals 


1,498 


323,558 


5 


750 


District 21 










Forsyth 


4,578 


794,705 


9 


1,100 


District Totals 


4,578 


794,705 


9 


1,100 


District 22 










Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


400 

2,203 

286 

1,440 


101,176 

474,907 

59,396 

317,754 




7 
1 
2 




1,145 

925 

500 


District Totals 


4,329 


953,233 


10 


2,570 


District 23 










Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


92 

182 
601 

222 


17,800 

40,890 

117,725 

65,730 





3 







650 




District Totals 


1,097 


242,145 


3 


650 


District 24 










Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


281 
103 
108 
329 
92 


59,450 
33,446 
34,714 
86,190 

27,385 





5 
2 







1,325 

750 




District Totals 


913 


241,185 


7 


2,075 


District 25 A 










Burke 
Caldwell 


729 
901 


164,416 
215,585 


3 

1 


661 
150 


District Totals 


1,630 


380,001 


4 


811 


District 25 B 










Catawba 


1,976 


368,353 


5 


495 


District Totals 


1,976 


368,353 


5 


495 


District 26 










Mecklenburg 


1,780 


1 ,024,768 


14 


2,997 


District Totals 


1,780 


1,024,768 


14 


2,997 


District 27 A 










Gaston 


282 


80,960 


5 


1,403 


District Totals 


282 


80,960 


5 


1,403 



X6 



ASSIGNED COUNSEL AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM 

Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



District 27 B 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Cleveland 
Lincoln 


640 
261 


130,009 
76,538 


10 
1 


925 
75 


District Totals 


901 


206,547 


11 


1,000 


District 28 










Buncombe 


684 


117,538 


4 


455 


District Totals 


684 


117,538 


4 


455 


District 29 










Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 


1,126 
472 
114 
682 
215 


220,857 
112,395 

37,736 
109,786 

60,056 



3 



1 

2 



796 



50 

629 


District Totals 


2,609 


540,830 


6 


1,475 


District 30 'A 










Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Macon 

Swain 


204 

41 

102 

299 

125 


69,098 
9,677 
35,634 
49,420 
24,081 




2 

2 






194 

325 



District Totals 


771 


187,910 


4 


519 


District 30B 










Haywood 
Jackson 


568 

192 


148,362 
62,308 


7 
1 


770 
30 


District Totals 


760 


210,670 


8 


800 


STATE TOTALS 


68,183 


$17,728,746 


297 


$53,335 



S7 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL 
(Positions and salaries authorized as of June 30, 1991) 

Positions 

Authorized Salary Ranges 
SUPREME COURT 

Justices $ 89,532-91,416* 

31 Staff personnel (Clerk's and Reporter's offices, 

law clerks, library staff) $ 16,854-67,352 

Secretarial personnel $ 28,785-30,019 

COURT OF APPEALS 

i: Judges $ 84,768-86,664* 

41 Staff personnel (Clerk's office, prehearing staff. 

Judicial Standards Commission staff, law clerks) $ 16,218-61,481 

1 3 Secretarial personnel $ 20,695-28,785 

SUPERIOR COURT 

83 Judges $ 75,252-77,736* 

107 Staff personnel $ 24,461-56,477 

65 Secretarial personnel $ 17,554-33,950 

DISTRICT COURT 

179 Judges $ 63,864-66,396* 

659 Magistrates $ 16,536-28,236 

32 Staff personnel $ 20,276-31,355 

45 Secretarial personnel $ 18,279-27,246 

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

37 District Attorneys $ 70,032* 

342 Staff personnel $ 19,067-68,535 

140 Secretarial personnel $ 16,854-39,864 

CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

100 Clerks of Superior Court $ 46,920-60,504* 

1,745 Staff personnel $ 16,236-34,740 

INDIGENT REPRESENTATION 

1 Appellate Defender $ 73,394 

8 Assistant Appellate Defenders $ 22,409-52,767 

Secretarial personnel $ 17,032-26,076 

1 Resource Center Director $ 63,000 

3 Resource Center staff personnel $ 23,952-53,000 

11 Public Defenders $ 70,032* 

97 Staff personnel $ 25,516-69,430 

48 Secretarial personnel $ 9,140-25,249 

4 Special counsel at mental health hospitals $ 12,500-41,340 

2 Assistants to Special Counsel $ 12,230 

4 Secretarial personnel $ 19,847-21,980 

1 Guardian ad Litem, Program Administrator $ 57,126 

Regional Administrators $ 27,246-38,529 

32 District Administrators $ 15,836-31,673 

33 Staff personnel $ 4,961-26,636 

8 Secretarial personnel $ 4,214-21,128 

JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 

1 Juvenile Services Administrator $ 70,571 

4 Juvenile Services Area Administrators $ 50,842-56,477 

3 Staff personnel $ 20,695-49,074 

330 Court counselors $ 21,548-45,296 

59 Secretarial personnel $ 8,879-27,564 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

1 Administrative Officer of the Courts $ 77,736* 

1 Assistant Director $ 63,360* 

195 Staff personnel (includes Sentencing & Policy Advisory Commission) $ 13,929-85,453 

: In addition to the salaries given here, these categories are entitled to a longevity allowance for years of service. ■ 



X8 



PART IV 



TRIAL COURTS CASEFLOW DATA 

• Superior Court Division 

• District Court Division 



TRIAL COURTS CASE DATA 



This part of the Annual Report presents pertinent 
data on a district-by-district and county-by-county basis. 
For ease of reference, this part is divided into a superior 
court division section and a district court division 
section. 

The data within the two sections are generally parallel 
in terms of organization, with each section subdivided 
into civil and criminal case categories. With some excep- 
tions, there are three basic data tables for each case 
category: a caseload inventory (filings, dispositions and 
pending) table; a table on the manner of dispositions; 
and tables on ages of cases disposed of during the year 
and ages of cases pending at the end of the year. Pending 
and age data are not provided for district court motor 
vehicle criminal cases, infractions, civil cases referred to 
magistrates (small claims cases), or juvenile cases, as 
these categories of cases are not reported by case file 
number. 

The caseload inventory tables provide a statistical 
picture of caseflow during the 1990-91 year. Inventory 
tables show the number of cases pending at the beginning 
of the year, the number of new cases filed, the number of 
cases disposed of during the year, and the number of 
cases left pending at the end of the year. The caseload 
inventory also shows the total caseload (the number 
pending at the beginning of the year plus the number 
filed during the year) and the percentage of the caseload 
that was disposed of during the year. 

The aging tables show the ages of the cases pending on 
June 30, 1991, as well as the ages of the cases disposed of 
during 1990-91. These tables also show both mean 
(average) and median ages for cases pending at the end 
of the year and cases disposed of during the year. The 
median age of a group of cases is, by definition, the age 
of a hypothetical case which is older than 50% of the 
total set of cases and younger than the other 50%. 

Unlike the median, the mean age can be substantially 
raised (or -lowered) if even a small number of very old (or 
very young) cases are included. For example, if only a 
single two-year old case was included with ten cases aged 
three months, the median age would be 90 days and the 
mean (average) age would be 148.2 days. A substantial 
difference between the median and average ages, there- 
fore, indicates the presence of a number of cases at the 
relative extremes, with either very high or very low ages. 

The majority of caseload statistics is now handled by 



automated processing rather than manual processing. 
Automated processing covers all case categories except 
estates, special proceedings, and juvenile proceedings. 
As of June 30, 1991, 99 counties were on the criminal 
module and all 100 counties were on the civil and 
infraction modules of the Administrative Office of the 
Court's (AOC) Court Information System (CIS). Meck- 
lenburg County has its own county-based processing 
system for criminal cases. 

The case statistics in Part IV have been summarized 
from the automated filing and disposition case data, as 
well as from manually reported case data. Pending case 
information is calculated from the filing and disposition 
data. The accuracy of the pending case figures is, of 
course, dependent upon timely and accurate data on 
filings and dispositions. 

Periodic comparisons by clerk personnel of their 
actual pending case files against the Administrative 
Office of the Court's computer-produced pending case 
lists, followed by indicated corrections, are necessary to 
maintain completely accurate data in the AOC computer 
file. Yet, staff resources in the clerks' offices are not 
sufficient to make such physical inventory checks as 
frequently and as completely as would be necessary to 
maintain full accuracy in the AOC's computer files. 
Thus, it is recognized that there is some margin of error 
in the figures published in the following tables. 

Another accuracy-related problem inherent in the 
AOC's reporting system is the lack of absolute con- 
sistency in the published year-end and year-beginning 
pending figures. The number of cases pending at the end 
of a reporting year should ideally be identical to the 
number of published pending cases at the beginning of 
the next reporting year. In reality, this is rarely the case. 
Experience has shown that inevitably some filings and 
dispositions that occurred in the preceding year do not 
get reported until the subsequent year. The later-reported 
data are regarded as being more complete and are used 
in the current year's tables, thereby producing some 
differences between the prior year's end-pending figures 
and the current year's begin-pending figures. 

Notwithstanding the indicated limitations in the data 
reporting and data-processing system, it is believed that 
the published figures are sufficiently adequate to fully 
justify their use. In any event, the published figures are 
the best and most accurate data currently available. 



91 



PART IV, Section 1 



Superior Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the 1990-91 caseflow of cases pending, 
filed, and disposed of in the State's superior courts 
before superior court judges. Data are also presented on 
cases filed and disposed of before the 100 clerks of 
superior court, who have original jurisdiction over estate 
cases and special proceedings. 

There are, for statistical reporting purposes, three 
categories of cases filed in the superior courts: civil cases 
(excluding estates and special proceedings), felony cases 
that are within the original jurisdiction of the superior 
courts, and misdemeanors. Most misdemeanor cases in 
superior court are appeals from convictions in district 
court; however, the superior courts have original juris- 
diction over misdemeanors in four instances defined in 
G.S. 7A-271, which includes, among others, the initiation 
of charges by presentment, and certain situations where 
a misdemeanor charge is consolidated with a felony 
charge. 

During 1990-91, as in previous years, the greatest 
proportion of superior court filings was felonies (54.6%), 
followed by misdemeanors (30.4%) and civil cases 
(15.0%). Following the general trend over the past 
decade, the total number of case filings increased signifi- 
cantly. During 1990-91, total case filings in superior 
courts increased by 5.6% from the preceding fiscal year 
(from 128,215 total cases to 135,419). Filings of civil 
cases increased by 4.6%, felony filings increased by 5.9%, 
and misdemeanor filings increased by 5.7%. 

Superior court civil cases generally take much longer 
to dispose of than do criminal cases. During 1990-91, the 
median age at disposition of civil cases was 272 days, 
compared to a median age at disposition of 96 days for 
felonies and 83 days for misdemeanors. A similar pattern 
exists for the ages of pending cases. The median ages of 
superior court cases pending on June 30, 1991, was 228 
days for civil cases, 110 days for felonies, and 100 days 
for misdemeanors. 

These differences in the median ages of civil versus 
criminal cases in superior courts can be attributed in part 
to the priority given criminal cases. In criminal cases, a 
defendant has a right to a "speedy trial" guaranteed by 
both the United States and North Carolina Constitu- 
tions. During 1990-91, there were six "speedy trial" 
dismissals. There is no similar constitutional requirement 
for speedy disposition of civil cases in North Carolina, 
although the North Carolina Constitution does provide 



that "right and justice shall be administered without 
favor, denial, or delay" (Article I, Section 18, N.C. 
Constitution). 

From 1989-90 to 1990-91, for civil cases, the median 
age at disposition increased from 271 days to 272 days, 
and the median age of cases pending at year-end 
increased from 225 days to 228 days. For felony cases, 
the median age at disposition increased from 86 days to 
96 days, and the median age of cases pending at year-end 
increased from 96 days to 110 days. For misdemeanor 
cases, the median age at disposition increased from 76 
days to 83 days, and the median age of cases pending 
increased from 93 days to 100 days. 

The three major case categories (civil, felonies, and 
misdemeanors) may be broken down into more specific 
case types. In the civil category, negligence cases com- 
prised 42.6% of total civil filings in superior courts (8,656 
of 20,320 total civil filings). Contract cases comprised 
the next largest category of civil case filings, at 26.1% 
(5,294 filings). Felony case filings were dominated by the 
following types of cases: controlled substances violations, 
29.6% (21,888 of 73,908 total filings); burglary and 
breaking or entering, 20.1% (14,881 filings); larceny, 
10.6%) (7,863 filings); and forgery and uttering, 10.3% 
(7,632 filings). Non-motor vehicle appeals comprised 
49.6% of misdemeanor filings in superior courts (20,416 
of 41,191 total fdings). 

Case dispositions in 1990-91 increased by 9.8% over 
last fiscal year (from 117,787 to 129,302 superior court 
dispositions). Jury trials continued to account for a low 
percentage of case dispositions: 4.2% of civil cases (837 
of 19,730 civil dispositions); 2.9% of felonies (1,990 of 
69,813 felony dispositions); and 2.4% of misdemeanors 
(969 of 39,759 misdemeanor dispositions). Over half 
(52.4%) of all civil dispositions were by voluntary dis- 
missal (10,348 of 19,730 civil dispositions). As in previous 
years, most criminal cases were disposed of by guilty 
plea; 64.7% of all felony dispositions (45,183 of 69,813), 
and 36.3% of all misdemeanor dispositions (14,422 of 
39,759) were by guilty plea, with 81% of these being to 
the offense as charged. 

The total number of cases disposed of in superior 
courts in 1990-91 was 6,117 cases less than the total 
number of cases filed. Consequently, the total number of 
pending cases in superior courts increased from 61,504 at 
the beginning of the fiscal year to a total at year's end of 
67,621, an increase of 9.9%. 



95 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



1981-82 — 1990-91 



150,000 



Filings 



Dispositions 



End Pending 



120,000 



90.000 



Number 

of 

Cases 



60,000 



30,000 



81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 



Superior court filings and dispositions have increased 
each of the last seven years. Cases pending at the end of 
the year have been on an upward trend even longer. This 



year's filings, dispositions, and pending cases increased 
by 5.6%, 9.8%, and 7.9%, respectively. 



96 



SUPERIOR COURT CASELOAD 



July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



73,908 



69,813 



28,942 



20,320 iQ7in 
18,439 — 1 1H^ 19.°29 



41,191 



39,759 



33,037 



14,123 



15,555 



Civil 
LJ Begin Pending 



Felony 
Filings LJ Dispositions 



Misdemeanor 



End Pending 



The number of cases pending in superior court increased 
in all categories during 1990-91. Pending civil cases 
increased by 3.2%, pending felonies by 14.1%, and 



pending misdemeanors by 10.1%. The number of filings 
and dispositions increased in all categories as well. 



97 



MEDIAN AGES OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 



Median Ages (in Days) of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 



Civil 



Felony 



Misdemeanor 




228.0 



Median Ages (in Days) of Cases Disposed During Fiscal Year 1990-91 



Civil 



Felony 



Misdemeanor 




272.0 



Last year's pending civil median age (225 days) and 
median age at disposition (271 days) were close to this 
year's ages. However, the median ages of pending 
felonies increased by 14 days over last year and pending 



misdemeanors increased by 7 days. The median ages at 
disposition of felonies and misdemeanors increased by 
10 and 7 days, respectively. 



98 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



1981-82 - 1990-91 




Dispositions 



Filings 



25,000 



20,000 



15,000 



Number 

of 

Cases 



10,000 



5,000 



81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 



87-88 



88-89 89-90 90-91 



The number of civil superior court cases filed, disposed, 
and pending at year's end have all increased each year 
for the past seven years. During fiscal year 1990-91, civil 
filings in the superior courts increased by 4.6% over the 
previous fiscal year, while dispositions increased by 



10.0%. There were 20,320 civil cases filed and 19,730 
disposed in the superior courts during 1990-91. The 
difference in these figures accounts for the 3.2% increase 
in the number of cases pending June 30, 1991, as 
compared to the number pending on July 1, 1990. 



99 



FILINGS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS BY TYPE OF CASE 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



Other (2,967) 



Administrative Appeals 
(336) 1J% 



Real Property (1,262) 



Contract (5,294) 



Other Negligence 
(2,103) 




Collection on Account 
(1,805) 



Motor Vehicle 
Negligence (6,553) 



While total civil filings in superior court increased by 
4.6% in fiscal year 1990-91, contract case filings de- 
creased by 9.4%, from 5,841 in fiscal year 1989-90 to 
5,294 in 1990-91. Non-motor vehicle negligence, the 
category that includes professional malpractice, in- 
creased by 5.4%, from 1,996 cases in fiscal year 1989-90 



to 2,103 in 1990-91, following two years of decline. Much 
of the civil caseload growth came in collection on 
account filings, which increased from 1,281 in 1989-90 to 
1 ,805 in 1 990-9 1 , a 40.9% increase. (The "other" category 
includes non-negligent torts such as conversion of pro- 
perty, civil assault, and civil fraud.) 



100 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 





Begin 








Pending 




Total 




7/1/90 


Filed 


Caseload 


District 1 








Camden 


10 


7 


17 


Chowan 


32 


20 


52 


Currituck 


65 


67 


132 


Dare 


171 


150 


321 


Gates 


19 


13 


32 


Pasquotank 


88 


79 


167 


Perquimans 


34 


15 


49 


District Totals 


419 


351 


770 


District 2 








Beaufort 


72 


81 


153 


Hyde 


23 


11 


34 


Martin 


59 


59 


118 


Tyrrell 


8 


7 


15 


Washington 


33 


30 


63 


District Totals 


195 


188 


383 


District 3A 








Pitt 


219 


371 


590 


District 3B 








Carteret 


172 


183 


355 


Craven 


203 


273 


476 


Pamlico 


19 


33 


52 


District Totals 


394 


489 


883 


District 4A 








Duplin 


95 


87 


182 


Jones 


25 


23 


48 


Sampson 


67 


94 


161 


District Totals 


187 


204 


391 


District 4B 








Onslow 


369 


286 


655 


District 5 








New Hanover 


579 


528 


1,107 


Pender 


74 


47 


121 


District Totals 


653 


575 


1,228 


District 6A 








Halifax 


126 


138 


264 







End 




% Caseload 


Pending 


sposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


8 


47.1% 


9 


34 


65.4% 


18 


45 


34.1% 


87 


152 


47.4% 


169 


17 


53.1% 


15 


95 


56.9% 


72 


22 


44.9% 


27 



373 



70 
17 
48 
8 
27 

170 



322 



204 

272 

27 

503 



88 
15 
81 

184 



368 



462 

47 

509 



138 



48.4% 



45.8% 
50.0% 
40.7% 
53.3% 
42.9% 

44.4% 



54.6% 



57.0% 



48.4% 
31.3% 
50.3% 

47.1% 



56.2% 



41.7% 
38.8% 

41.4% 



52.3% 



397 



83 
17 
70 
7 
36 

213 



268 



57.5% 


151 


57.1% 


204 


51.9% 


25 



380 



94 

33 
80 

207 



287 



645 

74 

719 



126 



101 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Begin 

Pending 

7/1/90 



District 6B 




Bertie 


45 


Hertford 


42 


Northampton 


34 


District Totals 


121 


District 7A 




Nash 


160 


District 7B-C 




Edgecombe 


109 


Wilson 


149 


District Totals 


258 


District 8A 




Greene 


30 


Lenoir 


185 


District Totals 


215 


District 8B 




Wayne 


287 


District 9 




Franklin 


56 


Granville 


65 


Person 


72 


Vance 


100 


Warren 


36 


District Totals 


329 


District 10A-D 




Wake 


1,926 


District 11 




Harnett 


146 


Johnston 


258 


Lee 


88 


District Totals 


492 


District 12A-C 




Cumberland 


442 





Total 


led 


Caseload 


56 


101 


40 


82 


43 


77 



139 



196 



117 
224 

341 



23 
204 

227 



262 



73 
81 
33 
73 
26 

286 



1,927 



160 
279 
115 

554 



544 



260 



356 



226 
373 

599 



53 
389 

442 



549 



129 
146 
105 
173 
62 

615 



3,853 



306 
537 
203 

1,046 



986 







End 




% Caseload 


Pending 


posed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


48 


47.5% 


53 


32 


39.0% 


50 


27 


35.1% 


50 



107 



172 



122 
207 

329 



28 
216 

244 



271 



49 
75 
53 
76 
30 

283 



1,774 



165 
245 
106 

516 



540 



41.2% 



48.3% 



54.0% 
55.5% 

54.9% 



52.8% 
55.5% 

55.2% 



49.4% 



38.0% 
51.4% 
50.5% 
43.9% 
48.4% 

46.0% 



46.0% 



53.9% 
45.6% 
52.2% 

49.3% 



54.8% 



153 



184 



104 
166 

270 



25 
173 

198 



278 



80 
71 
52 

97 

32 

332 



2,079 



141 

292 

97 

530 



446 



102 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 

Begin 
Pending 

7/1/90 



District 13 




Bladen 


60 


Brunswick 


151 


Columbus 


174 


District Totals 


385 


District 14A-B 




Durham 


607 


District ISA 




Alamance 


244 


District 15B 




Chatham 


56 


Orange 


220 


District Totals 


276 


District 16A 




Hoke 


16 


Scotland 


64 


District Totals 


80 


District 16B 




Robeson 


293 


District 17A 




Caswell 


17 


Rockingham 


99 


District Totals 


116 


District 17B 




Stokes 


28 


Surry 


113 


District Totals 


141 


District 18A-E 




Guilford 


1,196 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 


158 


District 19B 




Montgomery 


36 


Randolph 


152 


District Totals 


188 











End 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


'iled 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


90 


150 


52 


34.7% 


98 


161 


312 


125 


40.1% 


187 


121 


295 


135 


45.8% 


160 



372 



728 



233 



76 
291 

367 



27 
53 

80 



359 



22 
152 

174 



34 
174 

208 



1,447 

166 

36 
184 

220 



757 



1,335 



477 



132 
511 

643 



43 
117 

160 



652 



39 

251 

290 



62 
287 

349 



2,643 



324 



72 
336 

408 



312 



637 



278 



78 
283 

361 



19 
67 

86 



374 



26 
130 

156 



34 
173 

207 



1,428 



214 



33 
179 

212 



41.2% 



47.7% 



58.3% 



59.1% 
55.4% 

56.1% 



44.2% 
57.3% 

53.8% 



57.4% 



66.7% 
51.8% 

53.8% 



54.8% 
60.3% 

59.3% 



54.0% 



66.0% 



45.8% 
53.3% 

52.0% 



445 



698 



199 



54 

228 

282 



24 
50 

74 



278 



13 
121 

134 



28 
114 

142 



1,215 



110 



39 
157 

196 



103 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/90 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


District 19C 














Rowan 


153 


206 


359 


202 


56.3% 


157 


District 20A 














Anson 


49 


66 


115 


56 


48.7% 


59 


Moore 


146 


140 


286 


153 


53.5% 


133 


Richmond 


108 


96 


204 


113 


55.4% 


91 


District Totals 


303 


302 


605 


322 


53.2% 


283 


District 20B 














Stanly 


94 


100 


194 


80 


41.2% 


114 


Union 


183 


185 


368 


170 


46.2% 


198 


District Totals 


277 


285 


562 


250 


44.5% 


312 


District 21A-D 














Forsyth 


743 


1,004 


1,747 


1,011 


57.9% 


736 


District 22 














Alexander 


34 


54 


88 


44 


50.0% 


44 


Davidson 


143 


187 


330 


189 


57.3% 


141 


Davie 


52 


52 


104 


54 


51.9% 


50 


Iredell 


174 


313 


487 


267 


54.8% 


220 


District Totals 


403 


606 


1,009 


554 


54.9% 


455 


District 23 














Alleghany 


18 


18 


36 


20 


55.6% 


16 


Ashe 


18 


27 


45 


26 


57.8% 


19 


Wilkes 


134 


147 


281 


167 


59.4% 


114 


Yadkin 


37 


42 


79 


49 


62.0% 


30 


District Totals 


207 


234 


441 


262 


59.4% 


179 


District 24 














Avery 


32 


42 


74 


47 


63.5% 


27 


Madison 


38 


37 


75 


35 


46.7% 


40 


Mitchell 


34 


20 


54 


31 


57.4% 


23 


Watauga 


93 


110 


203 


115 


56.7% 


88 


Yancey 


17 


26 


43 


19 


44.2% 


24 


District Totals 


214 


235 


449 


247 


55.0% 


202 


District 25A 














Burke 


177 


186 


363 


198 


54.5% 


165 


Caldwell 


164 


171 


335 


174 


51.9% 


161 


District Totals 


341 


357 


698 


372 


53.3% 


326 



104 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/90 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


District 25B 














Catawba 


391 


424 


815 


404 


49.6% 


411 


District 26A-C 














Mecklenburg 


3,127 


3,116 


6,243 


3.044 


48.8% 


3,199 


District 27 A 














Gaston 


359 


545 


904 


553 


61.2% 


351 


District 27B 














Cleveland 


171 


149 


320 


142 


44.4% 


178 


Lincoln 


108 


87 


195 


98 


50.3% 


97 


District Totals 


279 


236 


515 


240 


46.6% 


275 


District 28 














Buncombe 


406 


597 


1,003 


527 


52.5% 


476 


District 29 














Henderson 


181 


203 


384 


145 


37.8% 


239 


McDowell 


68 


49 


117 


58 


49.6% 


59 


Polk 


24 


27 


51 


22 


43.1% 


29 


Rutherford 


73 


79 


152 


78 


51.3% 


74 


Transylvania 


64 


60 


124 


50 


40.3% 


74 


District Totals 


410 


418 


828 


353 


42.6% 


475 


District 30A 














Cherokee 


42 


44 


86 


44 


51.2% 


42 


Clay 


17 


8 


25 


18 


72.0% 


7 


Graham 


17 


19 


36 


18 


50.0% 


18 


Macon 


72 


50 


122 


51 


41.8% 


71 


Swain 


28 


20 


48 


16 


33.3% 


32 


District Totals 


176 


141 


317 


147 


46.4% 


170 


District 30B 














Haywood 


117 


123 


240 


119 


49.6% 


121 


Jackson 


57 


59 


116 


55 


47.4% 


61 


District Totals 


174 


182 


356 


174 


48.9% 


182 


State Totals 


18,439 


20,320 


38.759 


19,730 


50.9% 


19,029 



105 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



Final Order or 

Judgment Without Trial 

(Judge) (3,360) 



Voluntary Dismissal 
(10,348) 




Clerk (1,656) 



Other (743) 



Trial by Jury 
(868) 



Judge (2,421) 



Compared to 1989-90, civil dispositions in superior court 
increased by 10.0%, from 17,929 to 19,730. All "manner 
of disposition" categories showed increases except trial 
by jury, which decreased from 868 in fiscal year 1989-90 
to 837 in 1990-91 (a decrease of 3.6%). This marks the 
sixth consecutive year that the percentage of superior 
court civil cases disposed by jury trial has decreased, 
steadily declining from 7.7% in 1984-85 to 4.2% in 1990- 
91 . [The "other" category includes miscellaneous disposi- 
tions such as discontinuances for lack of service of 
process under Civil Rule 4(e), dismissal on motion of the 
court, and removal to federal court.] 



The median ages at disposition (in days) of cases 
within each disposition category is as follows: 

Median Age at 
Manner of Disposition Disposition 



Trial by Jury 


562.0 


Trial by Judge 


274.0 


Voluntary Dismissal 


294.0 


Final Order or Judgment Without Trial (Judge) 


294.0 


Clerk 


69.0 


Other 


190.5 



106 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 

CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Judge's 











Final Order 










Tria 


by 


Voluntary 


or Judgment 






Total 




Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Dispositions 


District 1 
















Camden 


1 


1 


3 





2 


1 


8 


Chowan 


1 


7 


15 


2 


6 


3 


34 


Currituck 


1 


9 


21 


9 


4 


1 


45 


Dare 


3 


4 


77 


46 


10 


12 


152 


Gates 


1 


1 


8 


4 


3 





17 


Pasquotank 


(1 


11 


54 


12 


8 


10 


95 


Perquimans 


1 


1 


14 


3 





3 


22 


District Totals 


8 


34 


192 


76 


33 


30 


373 


% of Total 


2.1% 


9.1% 


51.5% 


20.4% 


8.8% 


8.0% 


100.0% 


District 2 
















Beaufort 


6 


1 


39 


14 


6 


4 


70 


Hyde 


1 


2 


11 


1 


1 


1 


17 


Martin 


2 


2 


24 


16 


2 


2 


48 


Tyrrell 








4 


3 


1 





8 


Washington 


1 


4 


17 





4 


1 


27 


District Totals 


10 


9 


95 


34 


14 


8 


170 


% of Total 


5.9% 


5.3% 


55.9% 


20.0% 


8.2% 


4.7% 


100.0% 


District 3A 
















Pitt 


11 


56 


185 


11 


25 


34 


322 


% of Total 


3.4% 


17.4% 


57.5% 


3.4% 


7.8% 


10.6% 


100.0% 


District 3B 
















Carteret 


12 


35 


114 


22 


16 


5 


204 


Craven 


8 


20 


132 


50 


42 


20 


272 


Pamlico 


1 


3 


12 


9 


1 


1 


27 


District Totals 


21 


58 


258 


81 


59 


26 


503 


% of Total 


4.2% 


11.5% 


51.3% 


16.1% 


11.7% 


5.2% 


100.0% 


District 4A 
















Duplin 


4 


14 


45 


20 


5 





88 


Jones 


1 


2 


9 





1 


2 


15 


Sampson 


5 


15 


44 


5 


8 


4 


81 


District Totals 


10 


31 


98 


25 


14 


6 


184 


% of Total 


5.4% 


16.8% 


53.3% 


13.6% 


7.6% 


3.3% 


100.0% 


District 4B 
















Onslow 


17 


57 


222 


21 


16 


35 


368 


% of Total 


4.6% 


15.5% 


60.3% 


5.7% 


4.3% 


9.5% 


100.0% 



107 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 

CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Judge's 



District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 


Trial 
Jury 

20 
1 


by 
Judge 

26 

8 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 

277 
29 


Final Order 
or Judgment 
without Trial 

108 
5 


Clerk 

27 

1 


Other 

4 
3 


Total 
Dispositions 

462 
47 


District Totals 
% of Total 


21 
4.1% 


34 
6.7% 


306 

60.1% 


113 

22.2% 


28 

5.5% 


7 
1.4% 


509 
100.0% 


District 6A 

Halifax 

% of Total 


3 
2.2% 


43 
31.2% 


78 
56.5% 


2 
1.4% 


9 

6.5% 


3 
2.2% 


138 
100.0% 


District 6B 

Bertie 

Hertford 

Northampton 




1 
1 


5 
4 
9 


24 
18 
14 


16 
2 



1 
4 
1 


2 
3 
2 


48 
32 

27 


District Totals 
% of Total 


2 
1.9% 


18 
16.8% 


56 
52.3% 


18 
16.8% 


6 
5.6% 


7 
6.5% 


107 

100.0% 


District 7A 

Nash 

% of Total 


6 
3.5% 


8 
4.7% 


94 
54.7% 


40 
23.3% 


20 
11.6% 


4 
2.3% 


172 
100.0% 


District 7B-C 

Edgecombe 
Wilson 


8 

12 


10 
40 


68 
115 


28 
19 


2 
15 


6 
6 


122 
207 


District Totals 
% of Total 


20 
6.1% 


50 
15.2% 


183 
55.6% 


47 
14.3% 


17 

5.2% 


12 
3.6% 


329 
100.0% 


District 8A 

Greene 
Lenoir 



12 


1 
13 


15 
112 


7 
46 


2 
26 


3 
7 


28 
216 


District Totals 
% of Total 


12 

4.9% 


14 
5.7% 


127 
52.0% 


53 
21.7% 


28 
11.5% 


10 
4.1% 


244 
100.0% 


District 8B 

Wayne 

% of Total 


10 
3.7% 


48 
17.7% 


163 
60.1% 


31 
11.4% 


14 
5.2% 


5 
1.8% 


271 
100.0% 



108 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Judge's 











Final Order 










Tria 


by 


Voluntary 


or Judgment 






Total 




Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Dispositions 


District 9 
















Franklin 


1 


8 


27 


7 


6 





49 


Granville 


4 


8 


29 


29 


2 


3 


75 


Person 


4 


6 


34 


4 


4 


1 


53 


Vance 


1 


21 


34 


8 


7 


5 


76 


Warren 


2 


5 


18 


2 


1 


2 


30 


District Totals 


12 


48 


142 


50 


20 


11 


283 


% of Total 


4.2% 


17.0% 


50.2% 


17.7% 


7.1% 


3.9% 


100.0% 


District 10A-D 
















Wake 


54 


109 


854 


440 


146 


171 


1,774 


% of Total 


3.0% 


6.1% 


48.1% 


24.8% 


8.2% 


9.6% 


100.0% 


District 11 
















Harnett 


15 


13 


107 


26 


2 


2 


165 


Johnston 


20 


8 


131 


52 


22 


12 


245 


Lee 


4 


27 


53 


18 


3 


1 


106 


District Totals 


39 


48 


291 


96 


27 


15 


516 


% of Total 


7.6% 


9.3% 


56.4% 


18.6% 


5.2% 


2.9% 


100.0% 


District 12A-C 
















Cumberland 


20 


63 


340 


62 


17 


38 


540 


% of Total 


3.7% 


11.7% 


63.0% 


11.5% 


3.1% 


7.0% 


100.0% 


District 13 
















Bladen 


2 


5 


30 


7 


7 


1 


52 


Brunswick 


7 


11 


71 


18 


11 


7 


125 


Columbus 


9 


20 


90 


10 


2 


4 


135 


District Totals 


18 


36 


191 


35 


20 


12 


312 


% of Total 


5.8% 


11.5% 


61.2% 


11.2% 


6.4% 


3.8% 


100.0% 


District 14A-B 
















Durham 


24 


61 


308 


96 


98 


50 


637 


% of Total 


3.8% 


9.6% 


48.4% 


15.1% 


15.4% 


7.8% 


100.0% 


District ISA 
















Alamance 


7 


15 


107 


65 


18 


66 


278 


% of Total 


2.5% 


5.4% 


38.5% 


23.4% 


6.5% 


23.7% 


100.0% 



109 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 

CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Judge's 
Final Order 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 


Trial 
Jury 

6 

23 


Iby 
Judge 

7 
67 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 

41 
148 


or Judgment 
without Trial 

12 

12 


Clerk 

5 

24 


Other 

7 
9 


Total 
Dispositions 

78 
283 


District Totals 
% of Total 


29 
8.0% 


74 
20.5% 


189 

52.4% 


24 
6.6% 


29 
8.0% 


16 

4.4% 


361 
100.0% 


District 16A 

Hoke 

Scotland 


1 
5 


5 

1 


12 
51 


1 
5 




2 



3 


19 

67 


District Totals 
% of Total 


6 
7.0% 


6 

7.0% 


63 
73.3% 


6 
7.0% 


2 
2.3% 


3 
3.5% 


86 
100.0% 


District 16B 

Robeson 

% of Total 


2 
0.5% 


95 

25.4% 


251 
67.1% 


6 

1.6% 


19 

5.1% 


1 
0.3% 


374 
100.0% 


District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 


1 
10 


7 
27 


14 

73 


1 
4 


2 

10 


1 
6 


26 
130 


District Totals 
% of Total 


11 
7.1% 


34 
21.8% 


87 
55.8% 


5 
3.2% 


12 
7.7% 


7 
4.5% 


156 
100.0% 


District 17B 

Stokes 
Surry 


2 
9 


11 

12 


17 
100 


2 

33 



14 


2 
5 


34 
173 


District Totals 
% of Total 


11 
5.3% 


23 
11.1% 


117 
56.5% 


35 
16.9% 


14 
6.8% 


7 

3.4% 


207 
100.0% 


District 18A-E 

Guilford 

% of Total 


33 
2.3% 


246 
17.2% 


722 
50.6% 


201 
14.1% 


132 

9.2% 


94 
6.6% 


1,428 
100.0% 


District 19A 

Cabarrus 

% of Total 


9 
4.2% 


24 
11.2% 


130 
60.7% 


36 
16.8% 


6 
2.8% 


9 

4.2% 


214 
100.0% 


District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 


1 
9 


5 
44 


21 
103 


3 
12 


3 
5 



6 


33 
179 


District Totals 
% of Total 


10 

4.7% 


49 

23.1% 


124 
58.5% 


15 
7.1% 


8 
3.8% 


6 

2.8% 


212 
100.0% 



10 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 











Judge's 
Final Order 










Trial by 


Voluntary 


or Judgment 






Total 




Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Dispositions 


District 19C 
















Rowan 


14 


7 


143 


24 


5 


9 


202 


% of Total 


6.9% 


3.5% 


70.8% 


1 1 .9% 


2.5% 


4.5% 


100.0% 


District 20A 
















Anson 


5 


7 


35 


6 


2 


1 


56 


Moore 


7 


42 


77 


2 


6 


10 


153 


Richmond 


3 


13 


62 


7 


4 


24 


113 


District Totals 


15 


62 


174 


15 


12 


44 


322 


% of Total 


4.7% 


19.3% 


54.0% 


4.7% 


3.7% 


13.7% 


100.0% 


District 20B 
















Stanly 


2 


19 


45 


2 


6 


6 


80 


Union 


L5 


43 


85 


13 


14 





170 


District Totals 


17 


62 


130 


15 


20 


6 


250 


% of Total 


6.8% 


24.8% 


52.0% 


6.0% 


8.0% 


2.4% 


100.0% 


District 21A-D 
















Forsyth 


40 


131 


475 


168 


117 


80 


1,011 


% of Total 


4.0% 


13.0% 


47.0% 


16.6% 


1 1 .6% 


7.9% 


100.0% 


District 22 
















Alexander 


4 


4 


20 


10 


2 


4 


44 


Davidson 


10 


38 


105 


6 


23 


7 


189 


Davie 


2 


11 


35 


2 


4 





54 


Iredell 


11 


28 


136 


34 


30 


10 


267 


District Totals 


27 


81 


296 


52 


68 


30 


554 


% of Total 


4.9% 


14.6% 


53.4% 


9.4% 


12.3% 


5.4% 


100.0% 


District 23 
















Alleghany 





4 


12 


3 


o 


1 


20 


Ashe 





8 


11 


4 


2 


1 


26 


Wilkes 


4 


34 


98 





9 


22 


167 


Yadkin 


5 


2 


25 


13 


2 


2 


49 


District Totals 


9 


48 


146 


20 


13 


26 


262 


% of Total 


3.4% 


18.3% 


55.7% 


7.6% 


5.0% 


9.9% 


100.0% 



111 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Judge's 
Final Order 



District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


Trial 
Jury 

3 

3 
1 
3 
2 


by 
Judge 

4 
5 
6 
11 
4 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 

27 
15 
15 
62 
10 


or Judgment 
without Trial 

2 
9 

4 

22 
3 


Clerk 

5 
2 
2 
9 



Other 

6 

1 
3 
8 



Total 
Dispositions 

47 
35 
31 
115 
19 


District Totals 
% of Total 


12 
4.9% 


30 

12.1% 


129 
52.2% 


40 
16.2% 


18 
7.3% 


18 
7.3% 


247 
100.0% 


District 25A 

Burke 
Caldwell 


6 
13 


40 
15 


111 

108 


18 

25 


16 
13 


7 



198 

174 


District Totals 
% of Total 


19 

5.1% 


55 
14.8% 


219 
58.9% 


43 
11.6% 


29 

7.8% 


7 
1.9% 


372 
100.0% 


District 25B 

Catawba 

% of Total 


15 

3.7% 


43 

10.6% 


192 
47.5% 


114 
28.2% 


34 
8.4% 


6 

1.5% 


404 
100.0% 


District 26A-C 

Mecklenburg 
% of Total 


92 
3.0% 


166 

5.5% 


1,497 
49.2% 


872 
28.6% 


374 
12.3% 


43 
1.4% 


3,044 
100.0% 


District 27A 

Gaston 

% of Total 


34 
6.1% 


53 
9.6% 


295 
53.3% 


101 
18.3% 


19 

3.4% 


51 
9.2% 


553 
100.0% 


District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 


7 
7 


23 
16 


76 
57 


16 
13 


13 
5 


7 



142 
98 


District Totals 
% of Total 


14 
5.8% 


39 
16.3% 


133 

55.4% 


29 
12.1% 


18 
7.5% 


7 
2.9% 


240 
100.0% 


District 28 

Buncombe 
% of Total 


41 
7.8% 


123 
23.3% 


252 
-47.8% 


29 

5.5% 


38 
7.2% 


44 
8.3% 


527 
100.0% 



112 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 

Judge's 











Final Order 










Trial by 


Voluntary 


or Judgment 






Total 




Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Dispositions 


District 29 
















Henderson 


7 


37 


55 


26 


11 


9 


145 


McDowell 


7 


16 


24 


4 


1 


6 


58 


Polk 


1 


4 


14 


1 





2 


22 


Rutherford 





23 


38 


5 


8 


4 


78 


Transylvania 


2 


5 


20 


16 


5 


2 


50 


District Totals 


17 


85 


151 


52 


25 


23 


353 


% of Total 


4.8% 


24.1% 


42.8% 


14.7% 


7.1% 


6.5% 


100.0% 


District 30A 
















Cherokee 


4 


4 


19 


8 


1 


8 


44 


Clay 


4 





11 


2 


1 





18 


Graham 





4 


11 


3 








18 


Macon 


7 


7 


13 


15 


4 


5 


51 


Swain 


2 


2 


4 


6 


2 





16 


District Totals 


17 


17 


58 


34 


8 


13 


147 


% of Total 


11.6% 


11.6% 


39.5% 


23.1% 


5.4% 


8.8% 


100.0% 


District 30B 
















Haywood 


11 


17 


64 


19 


6 


2' 


119 


Jackson 


7 


11 


21 


9 


1 


6 


55 


District Totals 


18 


28 


85 


28 


7 


8 


174 


% of Total 


10.3% 


16.1% 


48.9% 


16.1% 


4.0% 


4.6% 


100.0% 


State Totals 


837 


2,421 


10,348 


3,360 


1,656 


1,108 


19,730 


% of Total 


4.2% 


12.3% 


52.4% 


17.0% 


8.4% 


5.6% 


100.0% 



113 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 







Ages c 


»f Pending 


; Cases (Moni 


ths) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 




<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 1 




















Camden 


4 


44.4% 


3 


33.3% 


2 


22.2% 


9 


506.8 


479.0 


Chowan 


8 


44.4% 


7 


38.9% 


3 


16.7% 


18 


422.2 


385.0 


Currituck 


43 


49.4% 


27 


31.0% 


17 


19.5% 


87 


476.3 


369.0 


Dare 


90 


53.3% 


53 


31.4% 


26 


15.4% 


169 


406.4 


345.0 


Gates 


6 


40.0% 


5 


33.3% 


4 


26.7% 


15 


599.1 


389.0 


Pasquotank 


47 


65.3% 


15 


20.8% 


10 


13.9% 


72 


362.8 


313.5 


Perquimans 


12 


44.4% 


7 


25.9% 


8 


29.6% 


27 


586.6 


383.0 


District Totals 


210 


52.9% 


117 


29.5% 


70 


17.6% 


397 


436.3 


345.0 


District 2 




















Beaufort 


60 


72.3% 


18 


21.7% 


5 


6.0% 


83 


277.1 


192.0 


Hyde 


6 


35.3% 


3 


17.6% 


8 


47.1% 


17 


874.5 


591.0 


Martin 


41 


58.6% 


21 


30.0% 


8 


11.4% 


70 


413.1 


273.5 


Tyrrell 


4 


57.1% 


1 


14.3% 


2 


28.6% 


7 


634.7 


354.0 


Washington 


19 


52.8% 


7 


19.4% 


10 


27.8% 


36 


468.4 


259.0 


District Totals 


130 


61.0% 


50 


23.5% 


33 


15.5% 


213 


413.6 


248.0 


District 3A 




















Pitt 


216 


80.6% 


44 


16.4% 


8 


3.0% 


268 


241.1 


182.5 


District 3B 




















Carteret 


102 


67.5% 


38 


25.2% 


11 


7.3% 


151 


289.1 


222.0 


Craven 


157 


77.0% 


37 


18.1% 


10 


4.9% 


204 


250.4 


207.0 


Pamlico 


21 


84.0% 


3 


12.0% 


1 


4.0% 


25 


282.7 


242.0 


District Totals 


280 


73.7% 


78 


20.5% 


22 


5.8% 


380 


267.9 


212.0 


District 4A 




















Duplin 


60 


63.8% 


21 


22.3% 


13 


13.8% 


94 


337.7 


256.0 


Jones 


17 


51.5% 


5 


15.2% 


11 


33.3% 


33 


877.0 


320.0 


Sampson 


61 


76.3% 


14 


17.5% 


5 


6.3% 


80 


317.2 


229.5 


District Totals 


138 


66.7% 


40 


19.3% 


29 


14.0% 


207 


415.7 


258.0 


District 4B 




















Onslow 


174 


60.6% 


82 


28.6% 


31 


10.8% 


287 


346.8 


275.0 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


299 


61.9% 


180 


27.9% 


66 


10.2% 


645 


335.1 


298.0 


Pender 


33 


44.6% 


32 


43.2% 


9 


12.2% 


74 


430.9 


408.0 


District Totals 


432 


60.1% 


212 


29.5% 


75 


10.4% 


719 


344.9 


307.0 


District 6A 




















Halifax 


79 


62.7% 


34 


27.0% 


13 


10.3% 


126 


341.3 


266.0 



114 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



<12 



12-24 



district 6B 










Jertie 


36 


67.9% 


12 


22.6% 


lertford 


30 


60.0% 


11 


22.0% 


Northampton 


32 


64.0% 


13 


26.0% 


District Totals 


MS 


64.1% 


36 


23.5% 


district 7A 










<Jash 


122 


66.3% 


46 


25.0% 


district 7B-C 










Edgecombe 


65 


62.5% 


34 


32.7% 


Vilson 


127 


76.5% 


28 


16.9% 


District Totals 


192 


71.1% 


62 


23.0% 


district 8A 










jreene 


14 


56.0% 


10 


40.0% 


^enoir 


125 


72.3% 


37 


21.4% 


District Totals 


139 


70.2% 


47 


23.7% 


district 8B 










Wayne 


177 


63.7% 


59 


21.2% 


district 9 










-ranklin 


57 


71.3% 


19 


23.8% 


jranville 


43 


60.6% 


21 


29.6% 


3 erson 


24 


46.2% 


19 


36.5% 


^ance 


46 


47.4% 


33 


34.0% 


Warren 


18 


56.3% 


7 


21.9% 


District Totals 


188 


56.6% 


99 


29.8% 


District 10A-D 










Wake 


1,320 


63.5% 


518 


24.9% 


District 11 










-larnett 


106 


75.2% 


30 


21.3% 


bhnston 


187 


64.0% 


77 


26.4% 


-ee 


67 


69.1% 


24 


24.7% 


District Totals 


360 


67.9% 


131 


24.7% 


District 12A-C 










Cumberland 


375 


84.1% 


66 


14.8% 


District 13 










iladen 


71 


72.4% 


22 


22.4% 


Brunswick 


123 


65.8% 


45 


24.1% 


Columbus 


94 


58.8% 


47 


29.4% 


District Totals 


288 


64.7% 


114 


25.6% 



>24 

5 

9 

5 

19 



16 



5 

11 

16 



1 
11 

12 



42 



241 



39 



% 

9.4% 
18.0% 
10.0% 

12.4% 



8.7% 



4.8% 
6.6% 

5.9% 



4.0% 
6.4% 

6.1% 



15.1% 



4 


5.0% 


7 


9.9% 


9 


17.3% 


18 


18.6% 


7 


21.9% 


45 


13.6% 



11.6% 



5 


3.5% 


28 


9.6% 


6 


6.2% 



7.4% 



1.1% 



5 


5.1% 


19 


10.2% 


19 


11.9% 



Total 
Pending 

5< 
5(1 
50 

153 



184 



43 



9.7% 



104 
166 

270 



25 
173 

198 



278 



80 
71 
52 
97 
32 

332 



2,079 



141 

292 

97 

530 



446 



98 
187 
160 

445 



Mean 

Age (Days) 

345.9 
403.5 
312.6 

353.9 



309.6 



305.9 
288.7 

295.3 



336.8 
255.1 

265.4 
343.1 



295.7 
362.7 
444.6 
462.5 
480.6 

399.9 



340.4 



254.4 
317.0 
298.0 

296.8 



208.6 



272.7 
322.3 
360.3 

325.1 



Median 

Age (Days) 

191.0 
275.5 
265.0 

255.0 



236.5 



240.0 

214.5 

224.5 



289.0 
177.0 

194.5 



249.5 



241.5 
304.0 
373.5 
377.0 
344.5 

308.5 



249.0 



198.0 
256.5 
242.0 

241.5 



166.5 



225.5 
251.0 
310.0 

258.0 



115 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



District 14A-B 

Durham 



<12 

472 



9c 
67.6% 



12-24 

158 



22.6% 



>24 

68 



% 
9.7% 



Total Mean 

Pending Age (Days) 



698 



309.6 



Median 
Age (Days) 

240.0 



District 15A 

Alamance 



149 



74.9% 



37 



18.6% 



13 



6.5% 



199 



246.6 



192.0 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 



47 
178 



87.0% 
78.1% 



6 
49 



11.1% 
21.5% 



1.9% 
0.4% 



54 
228 



231.1 
222.3 



192.5 
186.0 



District Totals 



225 



79.8% 



55 



19.5% 



0.7% 



282 



224.0 



188.5 



District 16A 
Hoke 

Scotland 



21 
30 



87.5% 
60.0% 



1 
16 



4.2% 
32.0% 



8.3% 
8.0% 



24 
50 



219.6 
333.0 



102.5 
254.0 



District Totals 



51 



68.9% 



17 



23.0% 



8.1% 



74 



296.2 



184.5 



District 16B 

Robeson 



211 



75.9% 



55 



19.8% 



12 



4.3% 



278 



250.3 



214.5 



District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 



11 
102 



84.6% 
84.3% 



2 
18 



15.4% 
14.9% 



0.0% 
0.8% 



13 
121 



227.4 
203.6 



214.0 
159.0 



District Totals 



113 



84.3% 



20 



14.9% 



0.7% 



134 



205.9 



163.0 



District 17B 

Stokes 
Surry 



26 
98 



92.9% 
86.0% 



2 
16 



7.1% 
14.0% 



0.0% 
0.0% 



28 
114 



152.4 
198.8 



116.5 
188.5 



District Totals 



124 



87.3% 



18 



12.7% 



0.0% 



142 



189.7 



155.5 



District 18A-E 

Guilford 



929 



76.5% 



250 



20.6% 



36 



3.0% 



1,215 



244.6 



191.0 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 



95 



86.4% 



14 



12.7% 



0.9% 



110 



176.1 



138.5 



District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 



27 
116 



69.2% 
73.9% 



10 
36 



25.6% 
22.9% 



5.1% 
3.2% 



39 
157 



262.5 
265.3 



191.0 
255.0 



District Totals 



143 



73.0% 



46 



23.5% 



3.6% 



196 



264.8 



243.0 



District 19C 

Rowan 



137 



87.3% 



19 



12.1% 



0.6% 



157 



185.9 



143.0 



District 20A 

Anson 
Moore 
Richmond 



48 
95 
61 



81.4% 
71.4% 
67.0% 



10 
26 
23 



16.9% 
19.5% 
25.3% 



1 

12 

7 



1.7% 
9.0% 
7.7% 



59 

133 

91 



220.8 
324.8 
335.0 



159.0 
233.0 
285.0 



District Totals 



204 



72.1% 



59 



20.8% 



20 



7.1% 



283 



306.4 



216.0 



116 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 







Ages 


of Pending 


Cases (Mor 


ths) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 


<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 20B 




















>tanly 


74 


64.9% 


30 


26.3% 


10 


8.8% 


114 


419.5 


245.0 


Jnion 


137 


69.2% 


50 


25.3% 


11 


5.6% 


198 


286.7 


218.5 


District Totals 


211 


67.6% 


SO 


25.6% 


21 


6.7% 


312 


335.2 


221.0 


District 21A-D 




















; orsyth 


610 


82.9% 


103 


14.0% 


U 


3.1% 


736 


216.4 


156.0 


District 22 




















Mexander 


35 


79.5% 


8 


18.2% 


1 


2.3% 


44 


206.6 


115.5 


Davidson 


114 


80.9% 


25 


17.7% 


2 


1.4% 


141 


233.9 


191.0 


Davie 


38 


76.0% 


10 


20.0% 


2 


4.0% 


50 


246.1 


168.0 


redell 


193 


87.7% 


23 


10.5% 


4 


1.8% 


220 


201.0 


158.5 


District Totals 


380 


83.5% 


66 


14.5% 


9 


2.0% 


455 


216.7 


164.0 


District 23 




















Mleghany 


12 


75.0% 


4 


25.0% 





0.0% 


16 


223.4 


181.5 


\she 


16 


84.2% 


2 


10.5% 


1 


5.3% 


19 


175.9 


103.0 


Wilkes 


102 


89.5% 


12 


10.5% 





0.0% 


114 


179.3 


168.0 


fadkin 


26 


86.7% 


2 


6.7% 


2 


6.7% 


30 


194.9 


134.0 


District Totals 


156 


87.2% 


20 


11.2% 


3 


1.7% 


179 


185.5 


146.0 


District 24 




















^very 


24 


88.9% 


3 


11.1% 





0.0% 


27 


166.1 


101.0 


Vladison 


29 


72.5% 


8 


20.0% 


3 


7.5% 


40 


273.6 


205.0 


Mitchell 


12 


52.2% 


8 


34.8% 


3 


13.0% 


23 


388.8 


338.0 


Watauga 


66 


75.0% 


19 


21.6% 


3 


3.4% 


88 


265.5 


171.0 


Yancey 


18 


75.0% 


6 


25.0% 





0.0% 


24 


202.9 


156.5 


District Totals 


149 


73.8% 


44 


21.8% 


9 


4.5% 


202 


260.4 


179.0 


District 25A 




















Jurke 


125 


75.8% 


34 


20.6% 


6 


3.6% 


165 


256.2 


198.0 


Caldwell 


116 


72.0% 


33 


20.5% 


12 


7.5% 


161 


299.9 


258.0 


District Totals 


241 


73.9% 


67 


20.6% 


18 


5.5% 


326 


277.7 


226.5 


District 25B 




















Catawba 


281 


68.4% 


109 


26.5% 


21 


5.1% 


411 


293.8 


216.0 


District 26 A -C 




















Mecklenburg 


2,092 


65.4% 


865 


27.0% 


242 


7.6% 


3,199 


346.7 


249.0 


District 27A 




















Gaston 


294 


83.8% 


49 


14.0% 


8 


2.3% 


351 


202.1 


146.0 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


102 


57.3% 


68 


38.2% 


8 


4.5% 


178 


328.9 


291.0 


Lincoln 


60 


61.9% 


28 


28.9% 


9 


9.3% 


97 


320.9 


214.0 


District Totals 


162 


58.9% 


96 


34.9% 


17 
117 


6.2% 


275 


326.1 


275.0 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 










Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 












Ag< 


?s of Pending 


Cases (Months) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 28 




















Buncombe 


365 


76.7% 


87 


18.3% 


24 


5.0% 


476 


266.5 


202.5 


District 29 




















Henderson 


142 


59.4% 


51 


21.3% 


46 


19.2% 


239 


415.6 


303.0 


McDowell 


27 


45.8% 


23 


39.0% 


9 


15.3% 


59 


445.6 


412.0 


Polk 


20 


69.0% 


9 


31.0% 





0.0% 


29 


298.3 


291.0 


Rutherford 


44 


59.5% 


24 


32.4% 


6 


8.1% 


74 


310.1 


239.5 


Transylvania 


40 


54.1% 


24 


32.4% 


10 


13.5% 


74 


390.8 


289.5 


District Totals 


273 


57.5% 


131 


27.6% 


71 


14.9% 


475 


391.9 


293.0 


District 30A 




















Cherokee 


27 


64.3% 


9 


21.4% 


6 


14.3% 


42 


347.7 


284.0 


Clay 


3 


42.9% 


3 


42.9% 


1 


14.3% 


7 


434.9 


415.0 


Graham 


11 


61.1% 


4 


22.2% 


3 


16.7% 


18 


376.3 


231.0 


Macon 


34 


47.9% 


21 


29.6% 


16 


22.5% 


71 


510.8 


370.0 


Swain 


17 


53.1% 


11 


34.4% 


4 


12.5% 


32 


447.2 


352.5 


District Totals 


92 


54.1% 


4S 


28.2% 


30 


17.6% 


170 


441.2 


345.5 


District 30B 




















Haywood 


91 


75.2% 


23 


19.0% 


7 


5.8% 


121 


258.3 


177.0 


Jackson 


39 


63.9% 


16 


26.2% 


6 


9.8% 


61 


358.8 


272.0 


District Totals 


130 


71.4% 


39 


21.4% 


13 


7.1% 


182 


292.0 


218.5 


State Totals 


13,207 


69.4% 


4,387 


23.1% 


1,435 


7.5% 


19,029 


305.2 


228.0 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 







Ages ( 


>f Disposed 


Cases (Month 


sj 


% 


Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 


<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


Age (Days) 


District 1 




















Camden 


4 


50.0% 


: 


25.0% 


2 


25.0% 


8 


510.4 


406.5 


Chowan 


21 


61.8% 


8 


23.5% 


5 


14.7% 


u 


338.4 


214.0 


Currituck 


34 


75.6% 


10 


22.2% 


1 


2.2% 


45 


250.6 


180.0 


Dare 


94 


61.8% 


35 


23.0% 


23 


15.1% 


152 


343.2 


218.0 


Gates 


8 


47.1% 


6 


35.3% 


3 


17.6% 


17 


369.9 


454.0 



Pasquotank 
Perquimans 



55 



57.9% 
31.8% 



26 

10 



27.4% 

45.5% 



14 



14.7% 
22.7% 



95 

22 



377.3 
515.7 



252.0 
601.5 



District Totals 



223 



59.8% 



97 



26.0% 



53 



14.2% 



373 



355.3 



251.0 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 
Tyrrell 
Washington 



45 
9 

29 
4 

17 



64.3% 
52.9% 
60.4% 
50.0% 
63.0% 



IS 

4 

14 
4 




25.7% 
23.5% 
29.2% 
50.0% 
33.3% 



7 


10.0% 


4 


23.5% 


5 


10.4% 





0.0% 


1 


3.7% 



70 
17 
48 

8 
27 



350.6 
420.7 
332.5 
337.9 
272.6 



277.5 
350.0 
254.0 
331.5 
161.0 



District Totals 



104 



61.2% 



40 



28.8% 



17 



10.0% 



170 



339.5 



268.0 



District 3A 

Pitt 



245 



76.1% 



57 



17.7% 



20 



6.2% 



322 



262.4 



179.5 



District 3B 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 



141 

187 

18 



69.1% 
68.8% 
66.7% 



46 

53 

6 



22.5% 
19.5% 
22.2% 



17 

32 

3 



8.3% 
11.8% 
11.1% 



204 

272 

27 



298 ,3 
316.8 
349.3 



221.5 
196.5 
302.0 



District Totals 



346 



68.8% 



105 



20.9% 



52 



10.3% 



503 



311.1 



213.0 



District 4A 

Duplin 

Jones 

Sampson 



53 
9 

56 



60.2% 
60.0% 
69.1% 



24 
3 

20 



27.3% 
20.0% 
24.7% 



11 
3 

5 



12.5% 

20.0% 

6.2% 



15 
81 



376.7 
434.4 
297.7 



308.5 
196.0 
231.0 



District Totals 



118 



64.1% 



47 



25.5% 



19 



10.3% 



184 



346.6 



278.0 



District 4B 
Onslow 



184 



50.0% 



111 



30.2% 



73 



19.8% 



368 



433.3 



365.5 



District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 



207 
27 



44.8% 
57.4% 



106 
16 



22.9% 
34.0% 



149 
4 



32.3% 
8.5% 



462 

47 



474.4 
331.4 



432.5 
237.0 



District Totals 



234 



46.0% 



122 



24.0% 



153 



30.1% 



509 



461.2 



417.0 



District 6A 

Halifax 



98 



71.0% 



30 



21.7% 



10 



7.2% 



138 



298.3 



229.0 



119 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 








Ages of Cases Disposed July 


1, 1990 


-- June 30, 1991 










Ages 


of Disposed Cases (Months) 


% 


Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


Age (Days) 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


31 


64.6% 


11 


22.9% 


6 


12.5% 


48 


357.3 


276.5 


Hertford 


15 


46.9% 


11 


34.4% 


6 


18.8% 


32 


421.0 


435.5 


Northampton 


19 


70.4% 


6 


22.2% 


2 


7.4% 


27 


317.4 


251.0 


District Totals 


65 


60.7% 


2* 


26.2% 


14 


13.1% 


107 


366.3 


271.0 


District 7A 




















Nash 


124 


72.1% 


41 


23.8% 


7 


4.1% 


172 


254.7 


185.5 


District 7B-C 




















Edgecombe 


81 


66.4% 


32 


26.2% 


9 


7.4% 


122 


312.2 


245.0 


Wilson 


141 


68.1% 


50 


24.2% 


16 


7.7% 


207 


294.0 


216.0 


District Totals 


222 


67.5% 


82 


24.9% 


25 


7.6% 


329 


300.8 


228.0 


District 8A 




















Greene 


17 


60.7% 


6 


21.4% 


5 


17.9% 


28 


403.9 


289.0 


Lenoir 


127 


58.8% 


65 


30.1% 


24 


11.1% 


216 


346.4 


285.5 


District Totals 


144 


59.0% 


71 


29.1% 


29 


11.9% 


244 


353.0 


286.5 


District 8B 




















Wayne 


159 


58.7% 


69 


25.5% 


43 


15.9% 


271 


388.5 


297.0 


District 9 




















Franklin 


26 


53.1% 


17 


34.7% 


6 


12.2% 


49 


361.1 


350.0 


Granville 


53 


70.7% 


15 


20.0% 


7 


9.3% 


75 


289.9 


196.0 


Person 


20 


37.7% 


23 


43.4% 


10 


18.9% 


53 


462.3 


427.0 


Vance 


40 


52.6% 


26 


34.2% 


10 


13.2% 


76 


370.4 


340.0 


Warren 


12 


40.0% 


7 


23.3% 


11 


36.7% 


30 


523.8 


447.0 


District Totals 


151 


53.4% 


88 


31.1% 


44 


15.5% 


283 


380.9 


340.0 


District 10A-D 




















Wake 


1,019 


57.4% 


543 


30.6% 


212 


12.0% 


1,774 


363.4 


293.5 


District 11 




















Harnett 


105 


63.6% 


45 


27.3% 


15 


9.1% 


165 


314.8 


266.0 


Johnston 


170 


69.4% 


46 


18.8% 


29 


11.8% 


245 


308.0 


231.0 


Lee 


77 


72.6% 


20 


18.9% 


9 


8.5% 


106 


270.5 


193.5 


District Totals 


352 


68.2% 


111 


21.5% 


53 


10.3% 


516 


302.5 


244.5 


District 12A-C 




















Cumberland 


349 


64.6% 


173 


32.0% 


18 


3.3% 


540 


298.5 


282.5 


District 13 




















Bladen 


27 


51.9% 


21 


40.4% 


4 


7.7% 


52 


348.0 


311.5 


Brunswick 


60 


48.0% 


37 


29.6% 


28 


22.4% 


125 


442.2 


391.0 


Columbus 


52 


38.5% 


40 


29.6% 


43 


31.9% 


135 


548.2 


476.0 


District Totals 


139 


44.6% 


98 


31.4% 


75 


24.0% 


312 


472.3 


437.0 



120 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



District 14A-B 

Durham 



<12 

440 



Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



% 
69.1% 



12-24 

153 



% 
24.0% 



>24 

44 



% 
6.9% 



Total 
Disposed 

637 



Mean 

Age (Days) 

297.8 



Median 
Age (Days) 

233.0 



District ISA 

Alamance 



155 



55.8% 



109 



39.2% 



14 



5.0% 



278 



334.5 



328.5 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 



60 
186 

246 



76.9% 
65.7% 

68.1% 



17 
S7 

104 



21.8% 
30.7% 

28.8% 



1 
10 

11 



1.3% 
3.5% 

3.0% 



78 
283 

361 



247.7 
283.4 

275.7 



226.0 
232.0 

231.0 



District 16A 
Hoke 

Scotland 



10 
44 



52.6% 
65.7% 



9 
15 



47.4% 
22.4% 



0.0% 
11.9% 



19 
67 



310.0 
346.3 



175.0 
240.0 



District Totals 



54 



62.8% 



24 



27.9% 



9.3% 



86 



338.2 



237.0 



District 16B 

Robeson 



270 



72.2% 



76 



20.3% 



28 



7.5% 



374 



279.0 



200.5 



District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 

District Totals 



19 
96 

115 



73.1% 
73.8% 

73.7% 



6 

30 

36 



23.1% 
23.1% 

23.1% 



3.8% 
3.1% 

3.2% 



26 
130 

156 



293.0 
264.2 

269.0 



264.5 
229.5 

237.5 



District 17B 

Stokes 
Surry 

District Totals 



26 
137 

163 



76.5% 
79.2% 

78.7% 



36 

44 



23.5% 
20.8% 

21.3% 



0.0% 
0.0% 

0.0% 



34 
173 

207 



262.6 
222.9 

229.4 



267.5 
205.0 

226.0 



District 18 A -E 

Guilford 



895 



62.7% 



486 



34.0% 



47 



3.3% 



1,428 



297.4 



267.5 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 



147 



68.7% 



63 



29.4% 



1.9% 



214 



283.1 



280.5 



District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 

District Totals 



21 
120 

141 



63.6% 
67.0% 

66.5% 



9 
50 

59 



27.3% 
27.9% 

27.8% 



3 
9 

12 



9.1% 
5.0% 

5.7% 



33 
179 

212 



384.2 
292.5 

306.8 



317.0 
266.0 

279.5 



District 19C 

Rowan 



133 



65.8% 



60 



29.7% 



4.5% 



202 



293.1 



283.5 



District 20A 

Anson 
Moore 
Richmond 



36 

102 

64 



64.3% 
66.7% 
56.6% 



18 
32 
29 



32.1% 
20.9% 
25.7% 



2 
19 
20 



3.6% 
12.4% 
17.7% 



56 
153 
113 



294.6 
340.7 
412.2 



286.0 
278.0 
295.0 



District Totals 



202 



62.7% 



79 



24.5% 



41 



12.7% 



322 



357.8 



282.0 



121 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 




| 






Ages of Cases Disposed July 


1, 1990 


-- June 30, 1991 










Ages 


of Disposed Cases (Months) 


% 


Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 
Age (Days) 


: 




<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


District 20B 




















i ' 


Stanly 


40 


61.3% 


14 


17.5% 


17 


21.3% 


80 


585.0 


286.0 


.1 


Union 


91 


53.5% 


68 


40.0% 


11 


6.5% 


170 


352.0 


328.5 


• 


District Totals 


140 


56.0% 


82 


32.8% 


28 


11.2% 


250 


426.5 


325.0 




District 21A-D 






















Forsyth 


730 


72.2% 


255 


25.2% 


26 


2.6% 


1,011 


269.6 


251.0 


' ' 


District 22 






















Alexander 


29 


65.9% 


15 


34.1% 





0.0% 


44 


262.4 


206.5 




Davidson 


139 


73.5% 


47 


24.9% 


3 


1.6% 


189 


255.0 


256.0 




Davie 


36 


66.7% 


16 


29.6% 


2 


3.7% 


54 


296.8 


302.0 




Iredell 


199 


74.5% 


63 


23.6% 


5 


1.9% 


267 


241.5 


213.0 




District Totals 


403 


72.7% 


141 


25.5% 


10 


1.8% 


554 


253.2 


245.5 


J 


District 23 




















1 
1 
1 


Alleghany 


12 


60.0% 


7 


35.0% 


1 


5.0% 


20 


292.0 


281.5 




Ashe 


21 


80.8% 


5 


19.2% 





0.0% 


26 


220.0 


198.0 




Wilkes 


98 


58.7% 


65 


38.9% 


4 


2.4% 


167 


332.2 


317.0 




Yadkin 


33 


67.3% 


16 


32.7% 





0.0% 


49 


259.8 


251.0 


1 


District Totals 


164 


62.6% 


93 


35.5% 


5 


1.9% 


262 


304.4 


300.5 




District 24 






















Avery 


30 


63.8% 


16 


34.0% 


1 


2.1% 


47 


288.1 


220.0 




Madison 


19 


54.3% 


15 


42.9% 


1 


2.9% 


35 


352.0 


336.0 




Mitchell 


18 


58.1% 


9 


29.0% 


4 


12.9% 


31 


387.1 


259.0 




Watauga 


66 


57.4% 


37 


32.2% 


12 


10.4% 


115 


327.5 


277.0 




Yancey 


10 


52.6% 


8 


42.1% 


1 


5.3% 


19 


296.5 


265.0 




District Totals 


143 


57.9% 


85 


34.4% 


19 


7.7% 


247 


328.6 


274.0 




District 25A 






















Burke 


124 


62.6% 


64 


32.3% 


10 


5.1% 


198 


322.1 


296.5 




Caldwell 


103 


59.2% 


60 


34.5% 


11 


6.3% 


174 


330.4 


285.5 




District Totals 


227 


61.0% 


124 


33.3% 


21 


5.6% 


372 


326.0 


294.0 




District 25B 






















Catawba 


252 


62.4% 


134 


33.2% 


18 


4.5% 


404 


296.5 


288.5 




District 26A-C 






















Mecklenburg 


1,644 


54.0% 


970 


31.9% 


430 


14.1% 


3,044 


398.3 


334.0 




District 27A 






















Gaston 


425 


76.9% 


106 


19.2% 


22 


4.0% 


553 


245.1 


189.0 




District 27B 






















Cleveland 


92 


64.8% 


33 


23.2% 


17 


12.0% 


142 


330.8 


279.5 




Lincoln 


51 


52.0% 


33 


33.7% 


14 


14.3% 


98 


394.8 


352.0 




District Totals 


143 


59.6% 


66 


27.5% 


31 


12.9% 


240 


356.9 


298.5 












122 













AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 







Ages 


of Dispo* 


.ed Cases (Months) 


% 


Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 


<I2 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


Age (Days) 


district 28 




















Juncombe 


396 


75.1% 


97 


18.4% 


34 


6.5% 


527 


277.2 


224.0 


district 29 




















iendcrson 


80 


55.2% 


34 


23.4% 


31 


21.4% 


145 


398.8 


265.0 


McDowell 


28 


48.3% 


21 


36.2% 


9 


15.5% 


58 


392.3 


415.0 


'oik 


12 


54.5% 


8 


36.4% 


2 


9.1% 


22 


351.4 


261.5 


lutherford 


53 


67.9% 


20 


25.6% 


5 


6.4% 


78 


290.0 


210.0 


Transylvania 


29 


58.0% 


16 


32.0% 


5 


10.0% 


50 


347.7 


239.0 


District Totals 


202 


57.2% 


99 


28.0% 


52 


14.7% 


353 


363.5 


263.0 


District 30A 




















Cherokee 


28 


63.6% 


14 


31.8% 


2 


4.5% 


44 


324.4 


316.0 


Clay 


9 


50.0% 


5 


27.8% 


4 


22.2% 


18 


409.9 


363.0 


Graham 


14 


77.8% 


3 


16.7% 


1 


5.6% 


18 


277.2 


156.0 


Macon 


22 


43.1% 


15 


29.4% 


14 


27.5% 


51 


533.5 


431.0 


Swain 


5 


31.3% 


4 


25.0% 


7 


43.8% 


16 


740.5 


663.5 


District Totals 


78 


53.1% 


41 


27.9% 


28 


19.0% 


147 


446.9 


332.0 


District 30B 




















Haywood 


64 


53.8% 


48 


40.3% 


7 


5.9% 


119 


365.0 


354.0 


Jackson 


32 


58.2% 


16 


29.1% 


7 


12.7% 


55 


336.8 


253.0 


District Totals 


96 


55.2% 


64 


36.8% 


14 


8.0% 


174 


356.1 


340.0 


State Totals 


12,280 


62.2% 


5.572 


28.2% 


1,878 


9.5% 


19,730 


334.9 


272.0 



123 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN ESTATES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 



1981-82 - 1990-91 



ESTATES 




50,000 



Number 
25,000 of 
Cases 



11-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87- 



5-89 89-90 90-91 



SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASES 




50,000 



Number 

25,000 of 
Cases 



81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 

Estate filings decreased slightly (0.2%) for the second closures and judicial hospitalizations. Special proceeding 

consecutive year. Estate dispositions increased by 1.3%. filings increased by 4.1% last year and dispositions grew 

Special proceedings include, among other things, fore- by 9.2%. 



124 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 



Special Proceedings 





July 


1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Estates 




Filed 


Disposed 


District 1 






Camden 


43 


43 


Chowan 


160 


169 


Currituck 


142 


114 


Dare 


178 


177 


Gates 


54 


46 


Pasquotank 


281 


358 


Perquimans 


105 


95 


District Totals 


963 


1,002 


District 2 






Beaufort 


390 


391 


Hyde 


78 


77 


Martin 


212 


175 


Tyrrell 


44 


43 


Washington 


110 


102 


District Totals 


834 


788 


District 3A 






Pitt 


672 


653 


District 3B 






Carteret 


526 


473 


Craven 


499 


413 


Pamlico 


107 


87 


District Totals 


1,132 


973 


District 4A 






Duplin 


378 


340 


Jones 


104 


77 


Sampson 


469 


458 


District Totals 


951 


875 


District 4B 






Onslow 


444 


432 


District 5 






New Hanover 


754 


690 


Pender 


181 


181 


District Totals 


935 


871 


District 6A 






Halifax 


517 


476 



Filed 

34 
90 
91 

239 
36 

236 
30 

756 



537 



510 



949 



660 



1,458 



1,176 
205 

1,381 



316 



Disposed 

37 
65 
73 
157 
9 
91 
33 

465 



232 


100 


41 


30 


161 


126 


29 


15 


74 


49 



320 



255 



330 


184 


581 


444 


38 


64 



692 



306 


191 


49 


29 


305 


214 



434 



999 



947 
153 

1,100 



246 



125 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 



July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Estates 



Filed 



District 6B 




Bertie 


159 


Hertford 


208 


Northampton 


204 


District Totals 


571 


District 7A 




Nash 


563 


District 7B-C 




Edgecombe 


455 


Wilson 


544 


District Totals 


999 


District 8A 




Greene 


141 


Lenoir 


474 


District Totals 


615 


District 8B 




Wayne 


692 


District 9 




Franklin 


284 


Granville 


292 


Person 


264 


Vance 


320 


Warren 


214 


District Totals 


1,374 


District 10A-D 




Wake 


1,961 


District 11 




Harnett 


462 


Johnston 


581 


Lee 


368 


District Totals 


1,411 


District 12A-C 




Cumberland 


1,100 



Disposed 

124 
176 
170 

470 



598 



311 
515 
826 



131 
489 

620 



788 



290 
295 
302 
355 
166 

1,408 



2,038 



427 
584 
337 

1,348 



1,170 



Special Proceedings 



Filed 

134 
157 
109 

400 



384 



414 



874 



1,171 



3,843 



1,423 



2,473 



Disposed 

83 
137 

72 

292 



139 



325 


141 


446 


328 


771 


469 


65 


53 


349 


334 



387 



818 



241 


133 


428 


390 


172 


179 


212 


186 


118 


82 



970 



3,792 



504 


369 


669 


631 


250 


138 



1,138 



2,549 



126 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 

Estates Special Proceedings 





Filed 


Disposed 


Filed 


Disposed 


District 13 










Bladen 


235 


236 


282 


99 


Brunswick 


488 


461 


553 


542 


Columbus 


416 


415 


322 


173 


District Totals 


1,139 


1,112 


1,157 


814 


District 14A-B 










Durham 


1,208 


1,282 


2,095 


1,850 


District 15A 










Alamance 


794 


788 


784 


459 


District 15B 










Chatham 


336 


302 


172 


142 


Orange 


512 


600 


772 


623 


District Totals 


848 


902 


944 


765 


District 16A 










Hoke 


112 


103 


126 


107 


Scotland 


249 


277 


356 


273 


District Totals 


361 


380 


482 


380 


District 16B 










Robeson 


672 


718 


847 


881 


District 17A 










Caswell 


147 


121 


162 


115 


Rockingham 


745 


774 


497 


546 


District Totals 


892 


895 


659 


661 


District 17B 










Stokes 


284 


230 


167 


63 


Surry 


411 


472 


363 


306 


District Totals 


695 


702 


530 


369 


District 18A-E 










Guilford 


2,353 


2,399 


2,841 


1,396 


District 19A 










Cabarrus 


750 


671 


548 


393 



127 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Estates Special Proceedings 





Filed 


Disposed 


Filed 


Disposed 


District 19B 










Montgomery 


165 


172 


127 


54 


Randolph 


751 


637 


536 


517 


District Totals 


916 


809 


663 


571 


District 19C 










Rowan 


1,010 


944 


806 


687 


District 20A 










Anson 


148 


136 


120 


46 


Moore 


541 


531 


473 


455 


Richmond 


293 


256 


401 


183 


District Totals 


982 


923 


994 


684 


District 20B 










Stanly 


468 


438 


321 


283 


Union 


456 


456 


399 


267 


District Totals 


924 


894 


720 


550 


District 21A-D 










Forsyth 


1,828 


1,919 


2,589 


2,469 


District 22 










Alexander 


164 


147 


108 


56 


Davidson 


868 


864 


860 


780 


Davie 


203 


168 


81 


53 


Iredell 


715 


739 


494 


484 


District Totals 


1,950 


1,918 


1,543 


1,373 


District 23 










Alleghany 


134 


90 


55 


34 


Ashe 


202 


196 


134 


132 


Wilkes 


318 


350 


361 


345 


Yadkin 


295 


289 


102 


90 


District Totals 


949 


925 


652 


601 


District 24 










Avery 


110 


102 


123 


84 


Madison 


143 


110 


63 


78 


Mitchell 


111 


106 


51 


41 


Watauga 


203 


169 


244 


227 


Yancey 


135 


180 


49 


15 


District Totals 


702 


667 


530 


445 



12X 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Estates Special Proceedings 



Filed 



District 25A 




Burke 


530 


Caldwell 


497 


District Totals 


1,027 


District 25B 




Catawba 


790 


District 26 A -C 




Mecklenburg 


3,051 


District 27A 




Gaston 


1,190 


District 27B 




Cleveland 


665 


Lincoln 


376 


District Totals 


1,041 


District 28 




Buncombe 


1,600 


District 29 




Henderson 


809 


McDowell 


275 


Polk 


225 


Rutherford 


550 


Transylvania 


237 


District Totals 


2,096 


District 30A 




Cherokee 


205 


Clay 


35 


Graham 


49 


Macon 


222 


Swain 


86 


District Totals 


597 


District 30B 




Haywood 


407 


Jackson 


229 


District Totals 


636 


State Totals 


46,735 



Disposed 

515 
490 

1,005 



877 

2,905 

1,113 

651 
340 

991 
1,644 



781 
414 
159 
452 
194 

2,000 



170 
38 

42 

197 

84 

531 



392 
278 

670 

45,920 



Filed 

542 
410 

952 

647 

4,903 

968 



582 
242 

824 



1,283 



1,305 



579 



Disposed 

343 
304 

647 



297 



6,438 



927 



376 
212 

588 



1,260 



490 


608 


302 


235 


55 


44 


335 


237 


123 


90 



1,214 



144 


111 


58 


41 


29 


11 


294 


298 


54 


54 



515 



342 


308 


182 


176 


524 


484 


,689 


42,783 



129 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1981-82 — 1990-91 



Filings 



Dispositions 



End Pending 



/ 



/ 



125,000 



100,000 



75,000 



Number 

of 

Cases 



50,000 



25,000 



11-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 



Criminal filings in the superior courts continued to grow 
in fiscal year 1990-91 (5.8% over the previous year), as 
did dispositions (9.7%). The number of cases pending at 



the end of the fiscal year also increased, but at a slower 
rate than in the last few years. 



130 



FILINGS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS — BY TYPE OF CASE 

July 1,1990- June 30, 1991 



Superior court criminal case filings totaled 1 15,099 cases, comprising the following specific types of cases: 

FELONIES 

Murder 
Manslaughter 
First Degree Rape 
Other Sex Offenses 
Robbery 
Assault 

Burglary/ Breaking or Entering 
Larceny 

Arson & Burning 
Forgery & Uttering 
Fraudulent Activity 
Controlled Substances 
Other* 
TOTAL 



Number Filed 


% of Total Filings 


790 


1.1% 


100 


0.1% 


1,717 


2.3% 


2,084 


2.8% 


3,115 


4.2% 


3,147 


4.3% 


14,881 


20.1% 


7,863 


10.6% 


429 


0.6% 


7,632 


10.3% 


5,377 


7.3% 


21,888 


29.6% 


4,885 


6.6% 


73,908 


100.0% 



MISDEMEANORS 

DWI Appeal 

Other Motor Vehicle Appeal 
Non-Motor Vehicle Appeal 
Misdemeanor Originating in Superior Court 
TOTAL 



6,978 
6,676 

20,416 
7,121 

41,191 



16.9% 
16.2% 
49.6% 
17.3% 
100.0% 



Felony filings increased from 69,810 in fiscal year 1989-90 to 73,908 in 1990-91, an increase of 5.9%. Misdemeanor 
filings in superior court increased from 38,974 to 41,191, or 5.7%. Among the case categories with the largest percentage 
increases are assault (20.7%), robbery (18.7%), and murder (16.7%). Felony controlled substance filings increased from 
20,272 to 21,888, or 8.0%), and now constitute 29.6% of the felony caseload in superior court. 

* "Other" felony cases include a wide variety of offenses — such as kidnapping, trespassing, crimes against public 
morality, perjury, and obstructing justice — that do not fit squarely into any of the offenses listed above. 



131 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 




! 




Begin 










End 


Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/90 


Filed ( 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


7/1/90 


Filed Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


District 1 


























Camden 


8 


21 


29 


26 


89.7% 


3 


26 


62 


88 


63 


71.6% 


25 


Chowan 


296 


126 


422 


235 


55.7% 


187 


106 


136 


242 


139 


57.4% 


103 


Currituck 


27 


117 


144 


42 


29.2% 


102 


95 


144 


239 


147 


61.5% 


92 


Dare 


271 


296 


567 


382 


67.4% 


185 


161 


447 


608 


430 


70.7% 


1781 


Gates 


49 


73 


122 


96 


78.7% 


26 


23 


99 


122 


97 


79.5% 


25 


Pasquotank 


210 


400 


610 


356 


58.4% 


254 


261 


464 


725 


554 


76.4% 


171 


Perquimans 


40 


52 


92 


55 


59.8% 


37 


74 


102 


176 


96 


54.5% 


80 


District Totals 


901 


1,085 


1,986 


1,192 


60.0% 


794 


746 


1,454 


2,200 


1,526 


69.4% 


674 


District 2 
























■ 


Beaufort 


200 


471 


671 


483 


72.0% 


188 


80 


495 


575 


435 


75.7% 


140! 


Hyde 


26 


19 


45 


30 


66.7% 


15 


12 


24 


36 


26 


72.2% 


10 


Martin 


83 


241 


324 


221 


68.2% 


103 


63 


190 


253 


183 


72.3% 


70 


Tyrrell 


35 


25 


60 


47 


78.3% 


13 


22 


72 


94 


63 


67.0% 


31 


Washington 


46 


187 


233 


139 


59.7% 


94 


23 


129 


152 


100 


65.8% 


52 


District Totals 


390 


943 


1,333 


920 


69.0% 


413 


200 


910 


1,110 


807 


72.7% 


303 


District 3A 


























Pitt 


870 


1,704 


2,574 


1,526 


59.3% 


1,048 


238 


1,393 


1,631 


1,105 


67.7% 


526 


District 3B 
























Carteret 


157 


448 


605 


460 


76.0% 


145 


87 


354 


441 


375 


85.0% 


66 


Craven 


272 


713 


985 


701 


71.2% 


284 


123 


527 


650 


575 


88.5% 


75 


Pamlico 


65 


129 


194 


149 


76.8% 


45 


5 


32 


37 


23 


62.2% 


14 


District Totals 


494 


1,290 


1,784 


1,310 


73.4% 


474 


215 


913 


1,128 


973 


86.3% 


155 


District 4A 


























Duplin 


74 


539 


613 


512 


83.5% 


101 


24 


95 


119 


104 


87.4% 


15 


Jones 


27 


50 


77 


64 


83.1% 


13 


1 


20 


21 


16 


76.2% 


5 


Sampson 


204 


618 


822 


714 


86.9% 


108 


16 


123 


139 


107 


77.0% 


32 


District Totals 


305 


1,207 


1,512 


1,290 


85.3% 


222 


41 


238 


279 


227 


81.4% 


52 


District 4B 


























Onslow 


252 


1,524 


1,776 


1,317 


74.2% 


459 


54 


414 


468 


368 


78.6% 


100 


District 5 


























New Hanover 


509 


1,923 


2,432 


1,779 


73.1% 


653 


288 


1,530 


1,818 


1,154 


63.5% 


664 


Pender 


147 


379 


526 


443 


84.2% 


83 


38 


118 


156 


126 


80.8% 


30 


District Totals 


656 


2,302 


2,958 


2,222 


75.1% 


736 


326 


1,648 


1,974 


1,280 


64.8% 


694 


District 6A 


























Halifax 


160 


684 


844 


450 


53.3% 


394 


79 


322 


401 


229 


57.1% 


172 



132 



istrict 6B 

ertie 
[ertford 
forth ampton 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



Begin 

Pending 

7/1/90 

48 

159 
57 



Knd Begin End 

Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/91 7/1/90 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/91 



112 
251 
280 



160 
410 

337 



140 
319 
264 



87.5% 
77.8% 
78.3% 



20 
91 
73 



30 
48 

17 



56 
99 
90 



86 

147 
107 



54 62.8% 

88 59.9% 

74 69.2% 



32 
59 
33 



District Totals 



264 



643 



907 



723 



79.7% 



184 



95 



245 340 



216 



63.5% 



124 



Mstrict 7A 

lash 



437 



1,060 1,497 1,116 



74.5% 



381 



259 



697 956 



848 



88.7% 



108 



Mstrict 7B-C 

idgecombe 
Vilson 



644 648 1,292 1,039 80.4% 253 386 304 690 494 71.6% 196 

278 1,104 1,382 893 64.6% 489 141 335 476 326 68.5% 150 



District Totals 



922 



1,752 2,674 1,932 



72.3% 



742 



527 



639 1,166 



820 



70.3% 



346 



Mstrict 8A 

jTeene 
xnoir 



39 116 155 114 73.5% 41 20 107 127 93 73.2% 34 

204 594 798 607 76.1% 191 132 498 630 391 62.1% 239 



District Totals 



243 



710 



953 



721 



75.7% 



232 



152 



605 757 



484 63. 



273 



Mstrict 8B 
Vayne 



296 



792 1,088 



790 



72.6% 



298 



403 



1,149 1,552 1,159 



74.7% 



393 



Mstrict 9 

Tanklin 

kanville 

'erson 

/ance 

Varren 



91 
115 
214 
265 

99 



556 
503 
499 
858 
171 



647 
618 
713 
1,123 
270 



486 
393 
472 
710 
173 



75.1% 
63.6% 
66.2% 
63.2% 
64.1% 



161 

225 
241 
413 

97 



131 
94 
145 
284 
107 



350 
331 
388 
648 
155 



481 
425 
533 
932 
262 



332 
283 
342 
649 
161 



69.0% 
66.6% 
64.2% 
69.6% 
61.5% 



149 
142 
191 
283 
101 



District Totals 



784 



2,587 3,371 2,234 



66.3% 



1,137 



761 1,872 2,633 1,767 



67.1% 



866 



Mstrict 10A-D 

Vake 



1,723 4,784 6,507 4,365 



67.1% 



2,142 



540 



2,717 3,257 2,721 



83.5% 



536 



Mstrict 11 

larnett 
ohnston 



226 
141 

95 



612 838 
609 750 
433 528 



673 
574 
391 



80.3% 
76.5% 
74.1% 



165 
176 
137 



92 
51 
59 



163 255 
385 436 
237 296 



217 
325 

234 



85.1% 
74.5% 
79.1% 



38 

111 

62 



District Totals 



462 1,654 2,116 



1,638 



77.4% 



478 



202 



785 



987 



776 



78.6% 



211 



Mstrict 12A-C 

Cumberland 



685 



2,469 3,154 2,014 



63.9% 



1,140 



142 



523 665 



479 



72.0% 



186 



133 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



Begin 
Pending 

7/1/90 

104 
190 
169 



End Begin End 

Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/91 7/1/90 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/91 



413 
493 
239 



517 
683 
408 



259 
412 
310 



50.1% 
60.3% 
76.0% 



258 

271 

98 



85 

58 

130 



209 
175 
237 



294 
233 
367 



213 
168 
293 



72.4% 
72.1% 
79.8% 



81 
65 

74 



District Totals 463 1,145 1,608 



981 



61.0% 



627 



273 



621 



894 



674 



75.4% 



220 



District 14A-B 

Durham 



2,040 



2,111 4,151 1,766 42.5% 



2,385 



235 



453 



688 



465 



67.6% 



223 



District 15A 

Alamance 



466 2,192 2,658 



1,847 



69.5% 



811 



90 



848 938 



684 



72.9% 



254 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 



139 348 487 260 53.4% 227 28 80 108 66 61.1% 42 

207 612 819 560 68.4% 259 36 173 209 165 78.9% 44 



District Totals 



346 



960 1,306 



820 



62.8% 



486 



64 



253 317 



231 72.9% 



86 



District 16A 

Hoke 
Scotland 



77 386 463 290 62.6% 173 23 105 128 62 48.4% 

227 518 745 467 62.7% 278 79 116 195 143 73.3% 



District Totals 



304 



904 1,208 



757 



62.7% 



451 



102 



221 323 



205 



63.5% 



118 



District 16B 

Robeson 



1,085 



2,583 3,668 2,749 74.9% 



919 



403 1,099 1,502 



899 



59.9% 



603 



District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 

District Totals 



20 143 163 130 79.8% 33 
825 1,112 1,937 1,281 66.1% 656 

845 1,255 2,100 1,411 67.2% 689 



49 228 277 233 
431 929 1,360 986 



480 



1,157 1,637 1,219 



84.1% 
72.5% 

74.5% 



44 
374 

418 



District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 

District Totals 

District 18A-E 

Guilford 

District 19A 

Cabarrus 



94 551 645 398 61.7% 247 

90 889 979 805 82.2% 174 

184 1,440 1,624 1,203 74.1% 421 



1,767 5,017 6,784 4,392 64.7% 2,392 



275 



1,397 1,672 1,042 62.3% 630 



77 


311 


388 


289 


74.5% 


99 


109 


713 


822 


657 


79.9% 


165 


186 


1,024 


1,210 


946 


78.2% 


264 


283 


699 


982 


608 


61.9% 


374 


322 


815 


1,137 


742 


65.3% 


395 



134 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1990-- June 30, 1991 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 






Begin 










Fnd 


Begin 










Fnd 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/90 


Filed < 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


7/1/90 


Filed Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


(strict 19B 


























[ontgomcry 


153 


286 


439 


285 


64.9% 


154 


119 


251 


370 


270 


73.0% 


100 


andolph 


627 


823 


1,450 


1,127 


77.7% 


323 


248 


600 


848 


631 


74.4% 


217 


District Totals 


780 


1,109 


1,889 


1,412 


74.7% 


477 


367 


851 


1,218 


901 


74.0% 


317 


(strict 19C 


























owan 


326 


1,312 


1.638 


966 


59.0% 


672 


169 


390 


559 


398 


71.2% 


161 


'istrict 20A 


























nson 


52 


279 


331 


292 


88.2% 


39 


31 


342 


373 


315 


84.5% 


58 


loore 


476 


825 


1,301 


956 


73.5% 


345 


181 


524 


705 


566 


80.3% 


139 


ichmond 


211 


850 


1,061 


812 


76.5% 


249 


161 


608 


769 


583 


75.8% 


186 


District Totals 


739 


1,954 


2,693 


2,060 


76.5% 


633 


373 


1,474 


1,847 


1,464 


79.3% 


383 


Hstrict 20B 


























tanly 


147 


319 


466 


272 


58.4% 


194 


150 


430 


580 


370 


63.8% 


210 


Inion 


204 


973 


1,177 


788 


66.9% 


389 


233 


533 


766 


474 


61.9% 


292 


District Totals 


351 


1,292 


1,643 


1,060 


64.5% 


583 


383 


963 


1,346 


844 


62.7% 


502 


Mstrict 21A-D 


























'orsyth 


1,109 


2,892 


4,001 


3,334 


83.3% 


667 


923 


1,654 


2,577 


2,348 


91.1% 


229 


)istrict 22 


























Uexander 


41 


237 


278 


191 


68.7% 


87 


51 


206 


257 


183 


71.2% 


74 


Davidson 


212 


775 


987 


758 


76.8% 


229 


161 


624 


785 


648 


82.5% 


137 


)avie 


16 


87 


103 


72 


69.9% 


31 


36 


162 


198 


154 


77.8% 


44 


redell 


336 


1,116 


1,452 


925 


63.7% 


527 


173 


820 


993 


685 


69.0% 


308 


District Totals 


605 


2,215 


2,820 


1,946 


69.0% 


874 


421 


1,812 


2,233 


1,670 


74.8% 


563 


District 23 


























Uleghany 


41 


26 


67 


43 


64.2% 


24 


35 


37 


72 


48 


66.7% 


24 


Vshe 


23 


55 


78 


50 


64.1% 


28 


38 


62 


100 


62 


62.0% 


38 


Mikes 


249 


367 


616 


438 


71.1% 


178 


138 


380 


518 


374 


72.2% 


144 


fadkin 


32 


103 


135 


93 


68.9% 


42 


24 


170 


194 


142 


73.2% 


52 


District Totals 


345 


551 


896 


624 


69.6% 


272 


235 


649 


884 


626 


70.8% 


258 


District 24 


























\very 


49 


81 


130 


63 


48.5% 


67 


20 


60 


80 


47 


58.8% 


33 


Vladison 


38 


138 


176 


106 


60.2% 


70 


5 


50 


55 


40 


72.7% 


15 


Vlitchell 


58 


81 


139 


70 


50.4% 


69 


21 


26 


47 


26 


55.3% 


21 


Watauga 


157 


289 


446 


267 


59.9% 


179 


67 


168 


235 


121 


51.5% 


114 


Yancey 


28 


52 


80 


54 


67.5% 


26 


33 


27 


60 


46 


76.7% 


14 


District Totals 


330 


641 


971 


560 


57.7% 


411 


146 


331 


477 


280 


58.7% 


197 



135 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 








Begin 










Fnd 


Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/90 


Filed ( 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


7/1/90 


Filed Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


District 25A 


























Burke 


332 


628 


960 


567 


59.1% 


393 


313 


971 


1,284 


812 


63.2% 


472 


Caldwell 


391 


865 


1,256 


730 


58.1% 


526 


329 


868 


1,197 


720 


60.2% 


477 


District Totals 


723 


1,493 


2,216 


1,297 


58.5% 


919 


642 


1,839 


2,481 


1,532 


61.7% 


949 


District 25B 


























Catawba 


574 


1,276 


1,850 


1,138 


61.5% 


712 


319 


1,183 


1,502 


1,043 


69.4% 


459 


District 26A-C 


























Mecklenburg 


1,306 


4.463 


5,769 


4,406 


76.4% 


1,363 


878 


2,201 


3,079 


2,093 


68.0% 


986 


District 27A 


























Gaston 


741 


2,344 


3,085 


2,062 


66.8% 


1,023 


386 


634 


1,020 


714 


70.0% 


306 


District 27B 


























Cleveland 


395 


897 


1,292 


826 


63.9% 


466 


105 


219 


324 


225 


69.4% 


99 


Lincoln 


233 


669 


902 


457 


50.7% 


445 


55 


257 


312 


198 


63.5% 


114 


District Totals 


628 


1,566 


2,194 


1,283 


58.5% 


911 


160 


476 


636 


423 


66.5% 


213 


District 28 


























Buncombe 


772 


1,821 


2,593 


1,566 


60.4% 


1,027 


165 


654 


819 


548 


66.9% 


271 


District 29 


























Henderson 


287 


503 


790 


456 


57.7% 


334 


136 


408 


544 


342 


62.9% 


202 


McDowell 


313 


267 


580 


409 


70.5% 


171 


152 


241 


393 


241 


61.3% 


152 


Polk 


51 


139 


190 


79 


41.6% 


111 


41 


72 


113 


68 


60.2% 


45 


Rutherford 


391 


589 


980 


628 


64.1% 


352 


433 


847 


1,280 


852 


66.6% 


428 


Transylvania 


221 


129 


350 


213 


60.9% 


137 


78 


82 


160 


103 


64.4% 


57 


District Totals 


1,263 


1,627 


2,890 


1,785 


61.8% 


1,105 


840 


1,650 


2,490 


1,606 


64.5% 


884 


District 30A 


























Cherokee 


123 


144 


267 


208 


77.9% 


59 


58 


83 


141 


103 


73.0% 


38 


Clay 


9 


54 


63 


31 


49.2% 


32 


15 


20 


35 


27 


77.1% 


8 


Graham 


37 


77 


114 


100 


87.7% 


14 


14 


87 


101 


82 


81.2% 


19 


Macon 


101 


191 


292 


251 


86.0% 


41 


31 


97 


128 


91 


71.1% 


37 


Swain 


39 


72 


111 


75 


67.6% 


36 


24 


35 


59 


41 


69.5% 


18 


District Totals 


309 


538 


847 


665 


78.5% 


182 


142 


322 


464 


344 


74.1% 


120 


District 30B 


























Haywood 


214 


451 


665 


579 


87.1% 


86 


124 


304 


428 


371 


86.7% 


57 


Jackson 


208 


169 


377 


342 


90.7% 


35 


32 


90 


122 


96 


78.7% 


26 


District Totals 


422 


620 


1,042 


921 


88.4% 


121 


156 


394 


550 


467 


84.9% 


83 


State Totals 


28,942 


73,908 


102,850 


69,813 


67.9% 


33,037 


14,123 


41,191 


55,314 


39,759 


71.9% 


15,555 



136 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 









I'd 


uiies 










Misdemeanors 








Begin 










End 


Begin 










Fnd 


ecutorlu 


1 Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Istrlct 


7/1/90 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


7/1/90 


Filed Caseload Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


1 


901 


1,085 


1,986 


1,192 


60.0% 


794 


746 


1,454 


2,200 


1,526 


69.4% 


674 


2 


390 


943 


1,333 


920 


69.0% 


413 


200 


910 


1,110 


807 


72.7% 


303 


3A 


870 


1,704 


2,574 


1,526 


59.3% 


1,048 


238 


1,393 


1,631 


1,105 


67.7% 


526 


3B 


494 


1.290 


1,784 


1,310 


73.4% 


474 


215 


913 


1,128 


973 


86.3% 


155 


4 


557 


2,731 


3,288 


2,607 


79.3% 


681 


95 


652 


747 


595 


79.7% 


152 


5 


656 


2,302 


2,958 


2,222 


75.1% 


736 


326 


1,648 


1,974 


1,280 


64.8% 


694 


6A 


160 


684 


844 


450 


53.3% 


394 


79 


322 


401 


229 


57.1% 


172 


6B 


264 


643 


907 


723 


79.7% 


184 


95 


245 


340 


216 


63.5% 


124 


7 


1,359 


2,812 


4,171 


3,048 


73.1% 


1,123 


786 


1,336 


2,122 


1,668 


78.6% 


454 


S 


539 


1,502 


2,041 


1,511 


74.0% 


530 


555 


1,754 


2,309 


1,643 


71.2% 


666 


9 


784 


2,587 


3,371 


2,234 


66.3% 


1,137 


761 


1,872 


2,633 


1,767 


67.1% 


866 


10 


1,723 


4,784 


6,507 


4,365 


67.1% 


2,142 


540 


2,717 


3,257 


2,721 


83.5% 


536 


11 


462 


1,654 


2,116 


1,638 


77.4% 


478 


202 


785 


987 


776 


78.6% 


211 


12 


685 


2,469 


3,154 


2,014 


63.9% 


1,140 


142 


523 


665 


479 


72.0% 


186 


13 


463 


1,145 


1,608 


981 


61.0% 


627 


273 


621 


894 


674 


75.4% 


220 


14 


2,040 


2,111 


4,151 


1,766 


42.5% 


2,385 


235 


453 


688 


465 


67.6% 


223 


15A 


466 


2,192 


2,658 


1,847 


69.5% 


811 


90 


848 


938 


684 


72.9% 


254 


15B 


346 


960 


1,306 


820 


62.8% 


486 


64 


253 


317 


231 


72.9% 


86 


16A 


304 


904 


1,208 


757 


62.7% 


451 


102 


221 


323 


205 


63.5% 


118 


16B 


1,085 


2,583 


3,668 


2,749 


74.9% 


919 


403 


1,099 


1,502 


899 


59.9% 


603 


17A 


845 


1,255 


2,100 


1,411 


67.2% 


689 


480 


1,157 


1,637 


1,219 


74.5% 


418 


17B 


184 


1,440 


1,624 


1,203 


74.1% 


421 


186 


1,024 


1,210 


946 


78.2% 


264 


18 


1,767 


5,017 


6,784 


4,392 


64.7% 


2,392 


283 


699 


982 


608 


61.9% 


374 


19A 


601 


2,709 


3,310 


2,008 


60.7% 


1,302 


491 


1,205 


1,696 


1,140 


67.2% 


556 


19B 


780 


1,109 


1,889 


1,412 


74.7% 


477 


367 


851 


1,218 


901 


74.0% 


317 


20 


1,090 


3,246 


4,336 


3,120 


72.0% 


1,216 


756 


2,437 


3,193 


2,308 


72.3% 


885 


21 


1,109 


2,892 


4,001 


3,334 


83.3% 


667 


923 


1,654 


2,577 


2,348 


91.1% 


229 


22 


605 


2,215 


2,820 


1,946 


69.0% 


874 


421 


1,812 


2,233 


1,670 


74.8% 


563 


23 


345 


551 


896 


624 


69.6% 


272 


235 


649 


884 


626 


70.8% 


258 


24 


330 


641 


971 


560 


57.7% 


411 


146 


331 


477 


280 


58.7% 


197 


25 


1,297 


2,769 


4.066 


2,435 


59.9% 


1,631 


961 


3,022 


3,983 


2,575 


64.6% 


1,408 


26 


1,306 


4,463 


5,769 


4,406 


76.4% 


1,363 


878 


2,201 


3,079 


2,093 


68.0% 


986 


27A 


741 


2,344 


3,085 


2,062 


66.8% 


1,023 


386 


634 


1,020 


714 


70.0% 


306 


27B 


628 


1,566 


2,194 


1,283 


58.5% 


911 


160 


476 


636 


423 


66.5% 


213 


28 


772 


1,821 


2,593 


1,566 


60.4% 


1,027 


165 


654 


819 


548 


66.9% 


271 


29 


1,263 


1,627 


2,890 


1,785 


61.8% 


1,105 


840 


1,650 


2,490 


1,606 


64.5% 


884 


30 


731 


1,158 


1,889 


1,586 


84.0% 


303 


298 


716 


1,014 


811 


80.0% 


203 



28,942 73,908 102,850 69,813 67.9% 33,037 14,123 41,191 55,314 39,759 71.9% 15,555 



This table is provided because prosecutorial districts are not coterminous with superior court districts. (See the district maps in Part II.) 



137 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 






July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



D. A. Dismissal 
(21,316) 



Guilty Plea to Lesser 
Offense (9,605) 




Guilty Plea to Offense 
Charged (35,578) 



Other (1,324) 

Not Guilty Plea 

(Jury Trial) 

(1,990) 



Guilty pleas continue to account for more than 60% of all 
superior court felony dispositions, with most of them being 
pleas to the offense charged. Dismissals here include 
voluntary dismissals with and without leave. "Other" 
dispositions include changes of venue, dismissals by the 
court, indictments returned not a true bill by grand juries, 
dispositions of writs of habeas corpus on fugitive warrants, 
dispositions of probation violations from other counties, and 
any other disposition not falling into one of the specific 
categories on the chart. The median ages (in days) of cases 
disposed by each method of disposition are: 





Median Age 


Manner of Disposition 


at Disposition 


Not Guilty Plea (Jury Trial) 


182.0 


Guilty Plea to Offense Charged 


85.0 


Guilty Plea to Lesser Offense 


83.0 


Dismissal 


124.0 


Other 


111.0 



138 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 





Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 


I 


)A Dismi.< 


As 


Lesser 


Without 


With 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Hstrict 1 












lamden 


11 


2 





12 





!howan 


27 


60 


2 


28 


1 


Airrituck 


18 


12 





9 





)are 


139 


61 


13 


165 


2 


iates 


63 


8 


6 


19 





asquotank 


176 


46 


14 


92 


28 


'erquimans 


26 


6 





19 





District Totals 


460 


195 


35 


344 


31 


% of Total 


38.6% 


16.4% 


2.9% 


28.9% 


2.6% 


Hstrict 2 












leaufort 


284 


65 


19 


96 


16 


lyde 


14 


8 


2 


5 


1 


lartin 


161 


14 


6 


25 


7 


'yrrell 


25 





1 


18 


1 


Washington 


95 


1 


11 


21 


6 


District Totals 


579 


88 


39 


165 


31 


% of Total 


62.9% 


9.6% 


4.2% 


17.9% 


3.4% 


Hstrict 3A 












itt 


634 


311 


34 


470 


52 


% of Total 


41.5% 


20.4% 


2.2% 


30.8% 


3.4% 


Hstrict 3B 












Carteret 


206 


56 


11 


169 


10 


-raven 


460 


35 


3 


176 


20 


'amlico 


78 


18 


4 


28 





District Totals 


744 


109 


18 


373 


30 


% of Total 


56.8% 


8.3% 


1.4% 


28.5% 


2.3% 


Hstrict 4A 












)uplin 


107 


265 


2 


121 


16 


ones 


28 


2 


11 


23 





lampson 


282 


103 


28 


267 


29 


District Totals 


417 


370 


41 


411 


45 


% of Total 


32.3% 


28.7% 


3.2% 


31.9% 


3.5% 


district 4B 












>nslow 


516 


160 


52 


536 


9 


% of Total 


39.2% 


12.1% 


3.9% 


40.7% 


0.7% 


district 5 












<ew Hanover 


1,039 


192 


58 


432 


41 


*ender 


226 


28 


4 


180 





District Totals 


1,265 


220 


62 


612 


41 


% of Total 


56.9% 


9.9% 


2.8% 


27.5% 


1.8% 



,a\ Speedy Total 

After Deferred Trial Total Negotiated 

Prosecution Dismissals Other Dispositions Pleas 









1 


26 


12 








117 


235 


70 








3 


42 


25 








2 


382 


1 











96 














356 


212 








4 


55 


29 








127 


1,192 


349 


0.0% 


0.0% 


10.7% 


100.0% 


29.3% 








3 


483 


381 











30 


22 








8 


221 


129 








2 


47 


22 








5 


139 


95 








18 


920 


649 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.0% 


100.0% 


70.5% 








25 


1,526 


893 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.6% 


100.0% 


58.5% 








8 


460 


260 








7 


701 


448 








21 


149 


106 








36 


1,310 


814 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.7% 


100.0% 


62.1% 








1 


512 


314 











64 


48 








5 


714 


309 








6 


1,290 


671 


0.0% 


0.0% 


0.5% 


100.0% 


52.0% 








44 


1,317 


639 


0.0% 


0.0% 


3.3% 


100.0% 


48.5% 








17 


1,779 


942 








5 


443 


194 








22 


2,222 


1,136 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.0% 


100.0% 


51.1% 



139 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 





Guilt\ 


Pleas 


Jury 


D 


\ Dismisj 


sal 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Without 


With 


After Deferred 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 6A 




















1 


Halifax 


227 


44 


14 


124 


14 








27 


450 


367 


% of Total 


50.4% 


9.8% 


3.1% 


27.6% 


3.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


6.0% 


100.0% 


81.6% 


District 6B 




















| 


Bertie 


81 


10 


4 


45 














140 


80 


Hertford 


162 


26 


12 


106 


3 








10 


319 


146 


Northampton 


162 


6 


18 


72 


3 








3 


264 


209 

j 


District Totals 


405 


42 


34 


223 


6 








13 


723 


435 


% of Total 


56.0% 


5.8% 


4.7% 


30.8% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.8% 


100.0% 


60.2% i 

i 


District 7A 




















1 


Nash 


449 


153 


11 


474 


24 








5 


1,116 


589 


% of Total 


40.2% 


13.7% 


1.0% 


42.5% 


2.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


0.4% 


100.0% 


52.8% 


District 7B-C 






















Edgecombe 


211 


192 


17 


587 


25 








7 


1,039 


380 


Wilson 


430 


82 


14 


353 


7 








7 


893 


732 


District Totals 


641 


274 


31 


940 


32 








14 


1,932 


1,112 


% of Total 


33.2% 


14.2% 


1.6% 


48.7% 


1.7% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


0.7% 


100.0% 


57.6% i 


District 8A 




















: 


Greene 


66 


13 


5 


21 


6 








3 


114 


65 


Lenoir 


277 


116 


30 


152 


24 








8 


607 


395 


District Totals 


343 


129 


35 


173 


30 








11 


721 


460 


% of Total 


47.6% 


17.9% 


4.9% 


24.0% 


4.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.5% 


100.0% 


63.8% 


District 8B 






















Wayne 


367 


138 


34 


188 


49 








14 


790 


488 


% of Total 


46.5% 


17.5% 


4.3% 


23.8% 


6.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.8% 


100.0% 


61.8% 


District 9 






















Franklin 


273 


46 


5 


149 











13 


486 


436 


Granville 


121 


98 


11 


136 


21 








6 


393 


217 


Person 


161 


100 


9 


200 


1 








1 


472 


262 


Vance 


414 


40 


14 


225 


7 








10 


710 


308 


Warren 


66 


26 


4 


71 


4 








2 


173 


86 


District Totals 


1,035 


310 


43 


781 


33 








32 


2,234 


1,309 


% of Total 


46.3% 


13.9% 


1.9% 


35.0% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.4% 


100.0% 


58.6% 


District 10A-D 






















Wake 


2,728 


331 


54 


876 


305 








71 


4,365 


2,962 


% of Total 


62.5% 


7.6% 


1.2% 


20.1% 


7.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.6% 


100.0% 


67.9% 



140 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 





Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 


1 
Without 


)A Dismissal 

With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


Istrict 11 






















amett 


296 


120 


18 


211 


15 








13 


673 


359 


hnston 


306 


141 


16 


97 


7 








7 


574 


422 


;e 


244 


67 


12 


58 


4 








6 


391 


310 


District Totals 


846 


328 


46 


366 


26 








26 


1,638 


1,091 


% of Total 


51.6% 


20.0% 


2.8% 


22.3% 


1.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.6% 


100.0% 


66.6% 


Istrict 12A-C 






















omberland 


1,421 


161 


42 


288 


33 








69 


2,014 


1,578 


% of Total 


70.6% 


8.0% 


2.1% 


14.3% 


1.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


3.4% 


100.0% 


78.4% 


Istrict 13 






















aden 


145 


16 


7 


81 


3 








7 


259 


153 


•unswick 


209 


41 


30 


125 


5 








2 


412 


337 


slumbus 


124 


43 


7 


128 


4 








4 


310 


164 


District Totals 


478 


100 


44 


334 


12 








13 


981 


654 


% of Total 


48.7% 


10.2% 


4.5% 


34.0% 


1.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.3% 


100.0% 


66.7% 


istrict 14A-B 






















orham 


943 


153 


58 


478 


116 








18 


1,766 


1,098 


% of Total 


53.4% 


8.7% 


3.3% 


27.1% 


6.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.0% 


100.0% 


62.2% 


istrict 15A 






















amance 


1,141 


247 


53 


393 


10 








3 


1,847 


1,602 


% of Total 


61.8% 


13.4% 


2.9% 


21.3% 


0.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


0.2% 


100.0% 


86.7% 


istrict 15B 






















tatham 


163 


21 


8 


62 


2 








4 


260 


213 


■ange 


325 


40 


15 


140 


31 








9 


560 


366 


District Totals 


488 


61 


23 


202 


33 








13 


820 


579 


% of Total 


59.5% 


7.4% 


2.8% 


24.6% 


4.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.6% 


100.0% 


70.6% 


istrict 16A 






















ike 


244 


7 


8 


29 











2 


290 


212 


:otland 


345 


27 


13 


54 


10 








18 


467 


361 


District Totals 


589 


34 


21 


83 


10 








20 


757 


573 


% of Total 


77.8% 


4.5% 


2.8% 


11.0% 


1.3% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.6% 


100.0% 


75.7% 


Istrict 16B 






















abeson 


2,341 


103 


67 


105 


97 








36 


2,749 


1,203 


% of Total 


85.2% 


3.7% 


2.4% 


3.8% 


3.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.3% 


100.0% 


43.8% 



141 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 





Guiltv Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 17A 






















Caswell 


80 


17 


2 


28 


3 











130 


88 


Rockingham 


726 


126 


77 


290 


56 








6 


1,281 


804 


District Totals 


806 


143 


79 


318 


59 








6 


1,411 


892 


% of Total 


57.1% 


10.1% 


5.6% 


22.5% 


4.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


0.4% 


100.0% 


63.2% 


District 17B 






















Stokes 


314 


28 


1 


47 











8 


398 


292 


Surry 


549 


109 


5 


106 


9 








27 


805 


490 


District Totals 


863 


137 


6 


153 


9 








35 


1,203 


782 


% of Total 


71.7% 


11.4% 


0.5% 


12.7% 


0.7% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.9% 


100.0% 


65.0% 


District 18A-E 






















Guilford 


2,656 


440 


183 


775 


303 








35 


4,392 


3,016 


% of Total 


60.5% 


10.0% 


4.2% 


17.6% 


6.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


0.8% 


100.0% 


68.7% 


District 19A 






















Cabarrus 


328 


209 


19 


469 


12 








5 


1,042 


484 


% of Total 


31.5% 


20.1% 


1.8% 


45.0% 


1.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


0.5% 


100.0% 


46.4% 


District 19B 






















Montgomery 


135 


31 


15 


93 


1 








10 


285 


156 


Randolph 


576 


144 


32 


252 


113 








10 


1,127 


665 


District Totals 


711 


175 


47 


345 


114 








20 


1,412 


821 


% of Total 


50.4% 


12.4% 


3.3% 


24.4% 


8.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.4% 


100.0% 


58.1% 

1 


District 19C 






















Rowan 


415 


197 


25 


293 


15 








21 


966 


711 


% of Total 


43.0% 


20.4% 


2.6% 


30.3% 


1.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.2% 


100.0% 


73.6% 


District 20A 






















Anson 


129 


59 


3 


97 


4 











292 


188 


Moore 


290 


95 


30 


517 


18 








6 


956 


342 


Richmond 


309 


88 


15 


358 


37 








5 


812 


386 


District Totals 


728 


242 


48 


972 


59 








11 


2,060 


916 


% of Total 


35.3% 


11.7% 


2.3% 


47.2% 


2.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


0.5% 


100.0% 


44.5% 


District 20B 






















Stanly 


131 


17 


9 


96 


7 








12 


272 


187 


Union 


251 


109 


42 


372 


3 








11 


788 


640 


District Totals 


382 


126 


51 


468 


10 








23 


1,060 


827 


% of Total 


36.0% 


11.9% 


4.8% 


44.2% 


0.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.2% 


100.0% 


78.0% 


District 21A-D 






















Forsyth 


1,906 


379 


91 


801 


101 








56 


3,334 


1,892 


% of Total 


57.2% 


11.4% 


2.7% 


24.0% 


3.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.7% 


100.0% 


56.7% 



142 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 





Guilty Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 


As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


trict 22 






















sxander 


158 


9 


4 


16 











4 


191 


153 


vidson 


511 


129 


14 


95 


3 








6 


758 


537 


vie 


50 


8 


1 


9 











4 


72 


54 


iell 


680 


75 


29 


117 


9 





(1 


15 


925 


430 


District Totals 


1,399 


221 


48 


237 


12 








29 


1,946 


1,174 


Jo of Total 


71.9% 


11.4% 


2.5% 


12.2% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.5% 


100.0% 


60.3% 


itrict 23 






















eghany 


31 








7 


1 








4 


43 


32 


le 


12 


19 


5 


13 











1 


50 


30 


Ikes 


312 


41 


23 


34 


22 








6 


438 


120 


dkin 


71 


3 


12 


4 











3 


93 


59 


District Totals 


426 


63 


40 


58 


23 








14 


624 


241 


Yo of Total 


68.3% 


10.1% 


6.4% 


9.3% 


3.7% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.2% 


100.0% 


38.6% 


itrict 24 






















ery 


19 


8 





16 


10 








10 


63 





■dison 


19 


31 


3 


44 


2 








7 


106 


43 


tchell 


19 


3 


5 


40 











3 


70 


50 


itauga 


75 


55 


7 


130 














267 


124 


ncey 


39 








13 











2 


54 


35 


District Totals 


171 


97 


15 


243 


12 








22 


560 


252 


% of Total 


30.5% 


17.3% 


2.7% 


43.4% 


2.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


3.9% 


100.0% 


45.0% 


strict 25A 






















rke 


217 


52 


12 


258 


20 








8 


567 


181 


ldwell 


315 


58 


8 


295 


26 








28 


730 


511 


District Totals 


■ 532 


110 


20 


553 


46 








36 


1,297 


692 


% of Total 


41.0% 


8.5% 


1.5% 


42.6% 


3.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.8% 


100.0% 


53.4% 


strict 25B 






















tawba 


344 


176 


31 


516 


59 








12 


1,138 


463 


% of Total 


30.2% 


15.5% 


2.7% 


45.3% 


5.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 


40.7% 


strict 26A-C 






















;cklenburg 


925 


2,025 


104 


949 


269 


3 





131 


4,406 


2,030 


% of Total 


21.0% 


46.0% 


2.4% 


21.5% 


6.1% 


0.1% 


0.0% 


3.0% 


100.0% 


46.1% 


strict 27A 






















ston 


952 


161 


76 


709 


134 








30 


2,062 


1,099 


% of Total 


46.2% 


7.8% 


3.7% 


34.4% 


6.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.5% 


100.0% 


53.3% 



143 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 





Guiltv Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiatet 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 27B 






















Cleveland 


410 


99 


31 


257 


13 








16 


826 


36 


Lincoln 


237 


42 


7 


130 


22 








19 


457 


221 


District Totals 


647 


141 


38 


387 


35 








35 


1,283 


257 


% of Total 


50.4% 


11.0% 


3.0% 


30.2% 


2.7% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.7% 


100.0% 


20.0% 


District 28 






















Buncombe 


1,068 


88 


21 


323 


49 








17 


1,566 


1,140 


% of Total 


68.2% 


5.6% 


1.3% 


20.6% 


3.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 


72.8% 


District 29 






















Henderson 


175 


36 


}2 


128 


78 








7 


456 


206 


McDowell 


127 


22 


19 


226 


2 





2 


11 


409 


107 


Polk 


45 


3 


4 


24 











3 


79 


37 


Rutherford 


323 


101 


25 


124 


38 








17 


628 


288 


Transylvania 


68 


35 


12 


94 


1 








3 


213 


91 


District Totals 


738 


197 


92 


596 


119 





2 


41 


1,785 


729 


% of Total 


41.3% 


11.0% 


5.2% 


33.4% 


6.7% 


0.0% 


0.1% 


2.3% 


100.0% 


40.8% 


District 30A 






















Cherokee 


43 


41 


5 


94 


13 








12 


208 


23 


Clay 


6 


2 


4 


6 


1 








12 


31 


2 


Graham 


33 


1 


2 


63 











1 


100 


36 


Macon 


84 


52 


4 


71 


28 








12 


251 


67 


Swain 


5 


5 


14 


45 


1 








5 


75 


25 


District Totals 


171 


101 


29 


279 


43 








42 


665 


153 


% of Total 


25.7% 


15.2% 


4.4% 


42.0% 


6.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


6.3% 


100.0% 


23.0% 


District 30B 




















I 


Haywood 


233 


95 


26 


170 


38 








17 


579 


397 


Jackson 


120 


21 


10 


149 


17 


4 





21 


342 


190 


District Totals 


353 


116 


36 


319 


55 


4 





38 


921 


587 


% of Total 


38.3% 


12.6% 


3.9% 


34.6% 


6.0% 


0.4% 


0.0% 


4.1% 


100.0% 


63.7% 


State Totals 


35,578 


9,605 


1,990 


18,702 


2,607 


7 


2 


1,322 


69,813 


40,409 


% of Total 


51.0% 


13.8% 


2.9% 


26.8% 


3.7% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.9% 


100.0% 


57.9% 



144 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 



Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 

Trials 


DA Dismissal 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 


Other 


Total 
Dispositions 


Total 


As 
Charged 


Lesser 
Offense 


Without 
Leave 


With 
Leave 


After Deferred 
Prosecution 


Negotiated 
Pleas 


460 
38.6% 


195 
16.4% 


35 

2.9% 


344 
28.9% 


31 

2.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


127 
10.7% 


1,192 
100.0% 


349 
29.3% 


579 
62.9% 


88 
9.6% 


39 

4.2% 


165 
17.9% 


31 
3.4% 




0.0% 




0.0% 


18 
2.0% 


920 
100.0% 


649 
70.5% 


634 
41.5% 


311 
20.4% 


34 
2.2% 


470 
30.8% 


52 
3.4% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


25 
1.6% 


1,526 
100.0% 


893 
58.5% 


744 
56.8% 


109 
8.3% 


18 
1.4% 


373 
28.5% 


30 
2.3% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


36 
2.7% 


1,310 
100.0% 


814 
62.1% 


933 
35.8% 


530 
20.3% 


93 

3.6% 


947 
36.3% 


54 
2.1% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


50 
1.9% 


2,607 
100.0% 


1,310 
50.2% 


1,265 
56.9% 


220 
9.9% 


62 
2.8% 


612 
27.5% 


41 
1.8% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


22 
1.0% 


2,222 
100.0% 


1,136 

51.1% 


227 
50.4% 


44 
9.8% 


14 

3.1% 


124 
27.6% 


14 
3.1% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


27 
6.0% 


450 
100.0% 


367 
81.6% 


405 
56.0% 


42 
5.8% 


34 

4.7% 


223 
30.8% 


6 
0.8% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


13 
1.8% 


723 
100.0% 


435 
60.2% 


1,090 
35.8% 


427 
14.0% 


42 
1.4% 


1,414 
46.4% 


56 
1.8% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


19 
0.6% 


3,048 
100.0% 


1,701 
55.8% 


710 
47.0% 


267 

17.7% 


69 
4.6% 


361 
23.9% 


79 

5.2% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


25 
1.7% 


1,511 
100.0% 


948 
62.7% 


1,035 
46.3% 


310 
13.9% 


43 
1.9% 


781 
35.0% 


33 
1.5% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


32 
1.4% 


2,234 
100.0% 


1,309 

58.6% 


2,728 
62.5% 


331 
7.6% 


54 
1.2% 


876 
20.1% 


305 
7.0% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


71 
1.6% 


4,365 
100.0% 


2,962 
67.9% 


846 
51.6% 


328 
20.0% 


46 
2.8% 


366 
22.3% 


26 
1.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


26 
1.6% 


1,638 
100.0% 


1,091 
66.6% 


1,421 
70.6% 


161 

8.0% 


42 
2.1% 


288 
14.3% 


33 
1.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


69 

3.4% 


2,014 
100.0% 


1,578 
78.4% 


478 
48.7% 


100 
10.2% 


44 
4.5% 


334 
34.0% 


12 
1.2% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


13 
1.3% 


981 
100.0% 


654 
66.7% 


943 

53.4% 


153 
8.7% 


58 
3.3% 


478 
27.1% 


116 
6.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


18 
1.0% 


1,766 
100.0% 


1,098 
62.2% 


1,141 
61.8% 


247 
13.4% 


53 
2.9% 


393 
21.3% 


10 
0.5% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


3 
0.2% 


1,847 
100.0% 


1,602 
86.7% 


488 
59.5% 


61 
7.4% 


23 
2.8% 


202 

24.6% 


33 
4.0% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


13 
1.6% 


820 
100.0% 


579 
70.6% 


589 
77.8% 


34 
4.5% 


21 
2.8% 


83 
11.0% 


10 
1.3% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


20 
2.6% 


757 
100.0% 


573 

75.7% 


2,341 
85.2% 


103 

3.7% 


67 
2.4% 


105 

3.8% 


97 
3.5% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


36 
1.3% 


2,749 
100.0% 


1,203 

43.8% 



This table is provided because prosecutorial districts are not coterminous with superior court districts. (See the district maps in Part II.) 



145 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



Prosecutorial 


Guilty Pleas 
As Lesser 
Charged Offense 


Jury 
Trials 


DA Dismissal 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 


Other 


Total 
Dispositions 


Total ; 


District 


Without 
Leave 


With 
Leave 


After Deferred 
Prosecution 


Negotiate 
Pleas 


17A 

% of Total 


806 

57.1% 


143 
10.1% 


79 
5.6% 


318 
22.5% 


59 
4.2% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


6 
0.4% 


1,411 
100.0% 


892 ;] 
63.2% 


17B 

% of Total 


863 

71.7% 


137 
11.4% 


6 
0.5% 


153 
12.7% 


9 
0.7% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


35 
2.9% 


1,203 
100.0% 


782 
65.0%' 


18 
% of Total 


2,656 
60.5% 


440 
10.0% 


183 
4.2% 


775 
17.6% 


303 
6.9% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


35 
0.8% 


4,392 
100.0% 


3,016 

68.7%' 


19A 

% of Total 


743 
37.0% 


406 
20.2% 


44 
2.2% 


762 
37.9% 


27 
1.3% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


26 
1.3% 


2,008 
100.0% 


1,195 

59.5% 


19B 

% of Total 


711 
50.4% 


175 
12.4% 


47 
3.3% 


345 
24.4% 


114 
8.1% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


20 
1.4% 


1,412 
100.0% 


821 

58.1% 


20 
% of Total 


1.110 
35.6% 


368 
11.8% 


99 

3.2% 


1,440 
46.2% 


69 
2.2% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


34 
1.1% 


3,120 
100.0% 


1,743 
55.9% 


21 
% of Total 


1.906 

57.2% 


379 

11.4% 


91 
2.7% 


801 
24.0% 


101 
3.0% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


56 
1.7% 


3,334 
100.0% 


1,892 : 

56.7% • 


22 
% of Total 


1,399 
71.9% 


' 221 
11.4% 


48 
2.5% 


237 
12.2% 


12 
0.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


29 
1.5% 


1,946 
100.0% 


1,174 
60.3% 


23 
% of Total 


426 
68.3% 


63 
10.1% 


40 
6.4% 


58 
9.3% 


23 
3.7% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


14 
2.2% 


624 
100.0% 


241 
38.6% 


24 
% of Total 


171 
30.5% 


97 

17.3% 


15 
2.7% 


243 
43.4% 


12 
2.1% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


22 
3.9% 


560 
100.0% 


252 || 
45.0% 


25 
% of Total 


876 
36.0% 


286 

11.7% 


51 
2.1% 


1,069 

43.9% 


105 
4.3% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


48 
2.0% 


2,435 
100.0% 


1,155 

47.4% : 


26 
% of Total 


925 
21.0% 


2,025 
46.0% 


104 

2.4% 


949 

21.5% 


269 
6.1% 


3 
0.1% 



0.0% 


131 
3.0% 


4,406 
100.0% 


2,030 : 
46.1% 


27A 
% of Total 


952 
46.2% 


161 
7.8% 


76 
3.7% 


709 
34.4% 


134 
6.5% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


30 
1.5% 


2,062 
100.0% 


1,099 : 
53.3% 


27B 

% of Total 


647 
50.4% 


141 
11.0% 


38 
3.0% 


387 
30.2% 


35 
2.7% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


35 
2.7% 


1,283 
100.0% 


257 
20.0% 


28 
% of Total 


1,068 
68.2% 


88 
5.6% 


21 
1.3% 


323 
20.6% 


49 
3.1% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


17 
1.1% 


1,566 

100.0% 


1,140 J 
72.8% 


29 
% of Total 


738 

41.3% 


197 
11.0% 


92 
5.2% 


596 
33.4% 


119 
6.7% 



0.0% 


2 
0.1% 


41 
2.3% 


1,785 
100.0% 


729 | 
40.8% 


30 

% of Total 


524 
33.0% 


217 
13.7% 


65 
4.1% 


598 
37.7% 


98 
6.2% 


4 
0.3% 



0.0% 


80 
5.0% 


1,586 
100.0% 


740 
46.7%, 


State Totals 
% of Total 


35,578 
51.0% 


9,605 
13.8% 


1,990 
2.9% 


18,702 
26.8% 


2,607 
3.7% 


7 
0.0% 


2 

0.0% 


1,322 
1.9% 


69,813 
100.0% 


40,409 
57.9% 



I 

This table is provided because prosecutorial districts are not coterminous with superior court districts. (See the district maps in Part II.) 



146 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 



Other (13,059) 



D. A. Dismissal 
(11,309) 




Not Guilty Plea 

(Jury Trial) 

(969) 



Guilty Plea to Lesser 
Offense (1,596) 



Guilty Plea to Offense 
Charged (12,826) 



juilty pleas account for 36.3% of superior court mis- 
lemeanor dispositions, nearly all of which are guilty 
ileas to the offense charged. The "other" category here 
ncludes withdrawn appeals, cases remanded to district 
ourt for judgment, and other miscellaneous dispositions 
uch as changes of venue, dismissal by the court, and 
lispositions of probation violations from other counties. 
)ismissals include voluntary dismissals with and without 
save. The median ages (in days) of cases disposed by 
ach method of disposition are: 



Manner of Disposition 

Not Guilty Plea (Jury Trial) 
Guilty Plea to Offense Charged 
Guilty Plea to Lesser Offense 
Dismissal 
Other 



Median Age 
at Disposition 

148.0 
92.0 

77.0 

115.0 

66.0 



147 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 
% of Total 

District 2 

Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 
% of Total 

District 3A 

Pitt 

% of Total 

District 3B 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 

District Totals 
% of Total 

District 4A 

Duplin 

Jones 

Sampson 

District Totals 
% of Total 

District 4B 

Onslow 
% of Total 

District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 
% of Total 



Guiltv Pleas 



As Lesser 

Charged Offense 



:s 

70 

SO 
118 

33 
244 

37 

610 

40.0% 



115 

8 

33 

19 

24 

199 

24.7% 



540 
48.9% 



92 
300 

10 

402 
41.3% 



27 
10 
61 

98 

43.2% 



115 
31.3% 



5*8 
65 

623 

48.7% 



13 

11 
12 
62 

9 
24 

6 

137 
9.0% 



11 
1 
3 
1 


16 
2.0% 



31 



14 
5 


19 
2.0% 



10 

3 

13 

5.7% 



9 

2.4% 



24 
7 

31 
2.4% 



July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

DA Dismissal 



Jury 
Trials 

2 

2 

1 
15 

1 
18 

2 

41 
2.7% 



12 

4 
3 
7 
5 

31 
3.8<i 



28 

2.5% 



4 

22 

1 

27 



19 

1 
1 

21 
9.3% 



22 
6.0% 



16 
4 

20 
1.6% 



Without 
Leave 

12 
27 
20 
83 
12 
110 
20 



69 
6 

18 
12 
10 

115 
14.3% 



253 
22.9% 



76 

78 

6 

160 
16.4% 



40 

4 

26 

70 
30.8% 



292 
33 

325 
25.4% 



With 
Leave 



4 

7 

19 

5 

23 

4 



Speedy 

After Deferred Trial Total 

Prosecution Dismissals Other Dispositions 



284 / 62 

18.6% 4.1% 



6 


8 


4 

18 

2.2% 



53 
4.8% 



31 

35 



66 
6.8% 



158 7 

42.9% 1.9? 



15 


15 
1.2% 












0.0% 










0.0% 




0.0% 









0.0% 









0.0% 





0.0% 







0.0% 












0.0% 










0.0% 




0.0% 









0.0% 








0.0% 





0.0% 








0.0% 



8 

25 

27 
133 

37 
135 

27 

392 

25.7% 



222 

7 

118 

24 

57 

428 
53.0% 



200 
18.1% 



158 

135 

6 

299 

30.7% 



7 

1 

14 

22 
9.7% 



57 
15.5% 



249 
17 

266 

20.8% 



63 
139 
147 
430 

97 
554 

96 

1,526 
100.0% 



435 

26 
183 

63 
100 

807 
100.0% 



1,105 
100.0% 



375 

575 

23 

973 
100.0% 



104 

16 

107 

227 
100.0% 



368 
100.0% 



1,154 
126 

1,280 
100.0% 



Total 

Negotiatec 
Pleas 



19 

51 





124 
14 



215 
14.1* 



142 

1 

23 

si 

16 h 

190 f 
23.595* 



199 

20.59, 



20 
9 

14 

43 
18.99' 



104 
28.39 



372 
43 

415 
32.49 



148 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 





Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 


As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


trict 6A 






















ifax 


51 


6 


4 


79 


19 








70 


229 


78 


lo of Total 


22.3% 


2.6% 


1.7% 


34.5% 


8.3% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


30.6% 


100.0% 


34.1% 


trict 6B 






















tie 


17 


2 


1 


15 











19 


54 


8 


tford 


49 





7 


22 


3 








7 


88 


20 


rthampton 


24 





4 


20 


4 





o 


22 


74 


13 


district Totals 


90 


2 


12 


57 


7 








48 


216 


41 


7o of Total 


41.7% 


0.9% 


5.6% 


26.4% 


3.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


22.2% 


100.0% 


19.0% 


trict 7A 






















>h 


394 


20 


3 


182 


29 








220 


848 


265 


Jo of Total 


46.5% 


2.4% 


0.4% 


21.5% 


3.4% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


25.9% 


100.0% 


31.3% 


trict 7B-C 






















»ecombe 


177 


18 


4 


179 


34 








82 


494 


104 


Is on 


119 


7 


2 


122 


7 








69 


326 


139 


District Totals 


296 


25 


6 


301 


41 








151 


820 


243 


7o of Total 


36.1% 


3.0% 


0.7% 


36.7% 


5.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


18.4% 


100.0% 


29.6% 


.trict 8A 






















;ene 


21 


5 


4 


16 











47 


93 


11 


ioir 


82 


38 


5 


112 


16 








138 


391 


37 


District Totals 


103 


43 


9 


128 


16 








185 


484 


48 


Jo of Total 


21.3% 


8.9% 


1.9% 


26.4% 


3.3% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


38.2% 


100.0% 


9.9% 


strict 8B 






















lyne 


235 


51 


49 


170 


48 








606 


1,159 


238 


Jo of Total 


20.3% 


4.4% 


4.2% 


14.7% 


4.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


52.3% 


100.0% 


20.5% 


strict 9 






















inklin 


130 


54 


3 


65 











80 


332 


227 


inville 


114 


17 


5 


92 


11 








44 


283 


128 


son 


98 


11 


4 


171 





1 





57 


342 


109 


nee 


301 


10 


3 


182 


24 








129 


649 


203 


irren 


84 


4 


2 


46 











25 


161 


75 


District Totals 


727 


96 


17 


556 


35 


1 





335 


1,767 


742 


Jo of Total 


41.1% 


5.4% 


1.0% 


31.5% 


2.0% 


0.1% 


0.0% 


19.0% 


100.0% 


42.0% 


strict 10A-D 






















ike 


546 


45 


39 


293 


896 








902 


2,721 


475 


% of Total 


20.1% 


1.7% 


1.4% 


10.8% 


32.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


33.1% 


100.0% 


17.5% 



[49 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 
% of Total 

District 12A-C 

Cumberland 
% of Total 

District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 
% of Total 

District 14A-B 

Durham 
% of Total 

District 15A 

Alamance 
% of Total 

District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
% of Total 

District 16A 

Hoke 
Scotland 

District Totals 
% of Total 

District 16B 

Robeson 
% of Total 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



Guilty Pleas 



As Lesser 

Charged Offense 



4^ 
112 
107 

266 

34.3% 



120 
25.1% 



47 
46 

85 

178 

26.4% 



147 
31.6% 



427 
62.4% 



33 
47 

80 
34.6% 



14 
41 

55 
26.8% 



293 
32.6% 



14 

11 

6 

31 
4.0% 



6 
10 
19 

35 
5.2% 



22 
4.7% 



11 
1.6% 



1 
3 

4 
1.7% 



3 

0.3% 



July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

DA Dismissal Speedy 



Jury 
Trials 

6 

4 
7 

17 

2.2% 



17 
3.5% 



9 

18 
13 

40 



16 





11 

11 
4.8% 



2 

1 

3 

1.5% 



10 

1.1% 



Total 
Negotiated! 



Without With After Deferred Trial Total 

Leave Leave Prosecution Dismissals Other Dispositions Pleas 



64 
66 
59 

189 

24.4% 



63 
13.2% 



56 

31 

58 

145 
21.5% 



15 143 

3.2% 30.8% 



9 

21 

30 
13.0% 



8 
20 

28 
13.7% 



35 
3.% 



9 
6 

2 

17 

2.2% 



31 
6.5% 



11 
2 

6 

19 



44 
9.5% 



105 2 

15.4% 0.3% 



3 
10 

13 
5.6% 



9 

4.4% 



38 
4.2% 



150 









77 


217 


43 








126 


325 


98 








53 


234 


105 








256 


776 


246 


0.0% 


0.0% 


33.0% 


100.0% 


31.7% 








239 


479 


125 


0.0% 


0.0% 


49.9% 


100.0% 


26.1%' 








84 


213 


46 








61 


168 


45 








112 


293 


73 








257 


674 


164 : 


0.0% 


0.0% 


38.1% 


100.0% 


24.3%> 








94 


465 


169 


0.0% 


0.0% 


20.2% 


100.0% 


36.3%; 



123 684 

0.0% 0.0% 18.0% 100.0% 









20 


66 


8 








73 


165 


48 j 








93 


231 


56 


0.0% 


0.0% 


40.3% 


100.0% 


24.2% 








36 


62 


13 








70 


143 


39 








106 


205 


52 


0.0% 


0.0% 


51.7% 


100.0% 


25.4% 





1 


519 


899 


150 


0.0% 


0.1% 


57.7% 


100.0% 


16.7% 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 





Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 


As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


trict 17A 






















well 


76 


6 


2 


51 


8 








90 


233 


47 


:kingham 


507 


63 


7 


134 


40 








235 


986 


481 


district Totals 


583 


69 


9 


185 


48 








325 


1,219 


528 


'oof Total 


47.8% 


5.7% 


0.7% 


15.2% 


3.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


26.7% 


100.0% 


43.3% 


trict 17B 






















kes 


172 


7 


7 


38 


4 








61 


289 


112 


ry 


413 


27 


6 


40 


5 








166 


657 


195 


District Totals 


585 


34 


13 


78 


9 








227 


946 


307 


oof Total 


61.8% 


3.6% 


1.4% 


8.2% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


24.0% 


100.0% 


32.5% 


trict 18A-E 






















ilford 


270 


27 


18 


88 


26 








179 


608 


216 


?o of Total 


44.4% 


4.4% 


3.0% 


14.5% 


4.3% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


29.4% 


100.0% 


35.5% 


trict 19A 






















:amis 


118 


15 


19 


210 


15 








365 


742 


41 


Yo of Total 


15.9% 


2.0% 


2.6% 


28.3% 


2.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


49.2% 


100.0% 


5.5% 


trict 19B 






















ntgomery 


69 


3 


5 


95 


9 








89 


270 


69 


tidolph 


212 


11 


10 


162 


90 








146 


631 


146 


District Totals 


281 


14 


15 


257 


99 








235 


901 


215 


7o of Total 


31.2% 


1.6% 


1.7% 


28.5% 


11.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


26.1% 


100.0% 


23.9% 


.trict 19C 






















wan 


78 


10 


18 


85 


27 








180 


398 


98 


Jo of Total 


19.6% 


2.5% 


4.5% 


21.4% 


6.8% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


45.2% 


100.0% 


24.6% 


itrict 20A 






















son 


77 


22 


8 


96 


2 








110 


315 


99 


>ore 


149 


10 


8 


164 


12 








223 


566 


154 


ihmond 


158 


11 


10 


196 


34 








174 


583 


98 


District Totals 


384 


43 


26 


456 


48 








507 


1,464 


351 


Jo of Total 


26.2% 


2.9% 


1.8% 


31.1% 


3.3% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


34.6% 


100.0% 


24.0% 


itrict 20B 






















inly 


69 


1 


11 


9! 


5 








193 


370 


83 


ion 


111 


29 


4 


141 


14 








175 


474 


198 


District Totals 


180 


30 


15 


232 


19 








368 


844 


281 


% of Total 


21.3% 


3.6% 


1.8% 


27.5% 


2.3% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


43.6% 


100.0% 


33.3% 


strict 21A-D 






















rsyth 


923 


75 


28 


507 


211 








604 


2,348 


711 


% of Total 


39.3% 


3.2% 


1.2% 


21.6% 


9.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


25.7% 


100.0% 


30.3% 



151 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 





Guilty Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 22 




















1 


Alexander 


15 


2 


9 


24 


2 








131 


183 


11 


Davidson 


132 


11 


10 


101 


18 








376 


648 


106 


Davie 


50 


1 


1 


19 











83 


154 


18 


Iredell 


109 


21 


7 


70 


15 








463 


685 


39 


District Totals 


306 


35 


27 


214 


35 








1,053 


1,670 


174 


% of Total 


18.3% 


2.1% 


1.6% 


12.8% 


2.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


63.1% 


100.0% 


10.4% 


District 23 




















, 


Alleghany 


7 








6 


2 








33 


48 


6 


Ashe 


9 


4 


2 


10 











37 


62 


4 


Wilkes 


55 


5 


22 


27 


29 








236 


374 


9 


Yadkin 


54 


5 


3 


15 


7 








58 


142 


46 


District Totals 


125 


14 


27 


58 


38 








364 


626 


65 


% of Total 


20.0% 


2.2% 


4.3% 


9.3% 


6.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


58.1% 


100.0% 


10.4% 


District 24 






















Avery 


15 





1 


21 











10 


47 





Madison 


13 


1 


1 


15 


1 








9 


40 


5 


Mitchell 


9 





5 


6 











6 


26 


4 


Watauga 


21 


2 


17 


33 











48 


121 


18 


Yancey 


11 





2 


29 


1 








3 


46 


5 


District Totals 


69 


3 


26 


104 


2 








76 


280 


32 , 


% of Total 


24.6% 


1.1% 


9.3% 


37.1% 


0.7% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


27.1% 


100.0% 


11.4% 


District 25A 






















Burke 


300 


36 


13 


166 


32 








265 


812 


86 


Caldwell 


230 


15 


6 


212 


33 








224 


720 


192 


District Totals 


530 


51 


19 


378 


65 








489 


1,532 


278 


% of Total 


34.6% 


3.3% 


1.2% 


24.7% 


4.2% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


31.9% 


100.0% 


18.1% 


District 25B 






















Catawba 


194 


58 


20 


238 


101 








432 


1,043 


166 


% of Total 


18.6% 


5.6% 


1.9% 


22.8% 


9.7% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


41.4% 


100.0% 


15.9% 


District 26A-C 






















Mecklenburg 


191 


338 


61 


913 


84 


1 





505 


2,093 


341 


% of Total 


9.1% 


16.1% 


2.9% 


43.6% 


4.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


24.1% 


100.0% 


16.3% 


District 27A 






















Gaston 


231 


28 


51 


238 


39 








127 


714 


193 


% of Total 


32.4% 


3.9% 


7.1% 


33.3% 


5.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


17.8% 


100.0% 


27.0% 



152 






MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 





Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With After Deferred 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 


As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


strict 27B 






















eveland 


55 


7 


7 


54 





1 





101 


225 


4 


Koln 


35 


2 


6 


50 


1 








104 


198 


20 


District Totals 


90 


9 


13 


104 


1 


1 





205 


423 


24 


% of Total 


21.3% 


2.1% 


3.1% 


24.6% 


0.2% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


48.5% 


100.0% 


5.7% 


strict 28 






















tncombe 


222 


7 


21 


66 


31 








201 


548 


204 


% of Total 


40.5% 


1.3% 


3.8% 


12.0% 


5.7% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


36.7% 


100.0% 


37.2% 


strict 29 






















mderson 


98 


7 


6 


53 


24 








154 


342 


112 


cDowell 


103 


1 


9 


29 


4 





3 


92 


241 


72 


ilk 


23 


2 


4 


11 











28 


68 


3 


itherford 


327 


14 


18 


137 


57 








299 


852 


114 


ansylvania 


39 


4 


3 


27 


3 








27 


103 


35 


District Totals 


590 


28 


40 


257 


88 





3 


600 


1,606 


336 


% of Total 


36.7% 


1.7% 


2.5% 


16.0% 


5.5% 


0.0% 


0.2% 


37.4% 


100.0% 


20.9% 


strict 30A 






















lerokee 


49 


5 


5 


23 


17 








4 


103 





ay 


13 


1 





8 


2 








3 


27 


1 


raham 


45 


6 





29 











2 


82 


35 


aeon 


32 


3 


4 


36 


10 








6 


91 


4 


vain 


7 


7 


2 


9 


2 








14 


41 


15 


District Totals 


146 


22 


11 


105 


31 








29 


344 


55 


% of Total 


42.4% 


6.4% 


3.2% 


30.5% 


9.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


8.4% 


100.0% 


16.0% 


Istrict 30B 






















lywood 


109 


21 


31 


91 


35 








84 


371 


171 


ckson 


26 


2 


3 


33 











32 


96 


39 


District Totals 


135 


23 


34 


124 


35 








116 


467 


210 


% of Total 


28.9% 


4.9% 


7.3% 


26.6% 


7.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


24.8% 


100.0% 


45.0% 


ate Totals 


12,826 


1,596 


969 


8,766 


2,540 


3 


4 


13,055 


39,759 


9,977 


% of Total 


32.3% 


4.0% 


2.4% 


22.0% 


6.4% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


32.8% 


100.0% 


25.1% 



153 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



Prosecutorial 


Guilty Pleas 


Jury 

Trials 


DA Dismissal 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 


Other 


Total 
Dispositions 


Total 
Negotiatec 
Pleas | 


District 


As 

Charged 


Lesser 
Offense 


Without 
Leave 


With 
Leave 


After Deferred 
Prosecution 


1 
% of Total 


610 
40.0% 


137 
9.0% 


41 
2.7% 


284 
18.6% 


62 
4.1% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


392 
25.7% 


1,526 
100.0% 


215 
14.1% j 


2 
% of Total 


199 

24.7% 


16 
2.0% 


31 
3.8% 


115 
14.3% 


18 
2.2% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


428 
53.0% 


807 
100.0% 


190 

23.5% 


3A 

% of Total 


540 
48.9% 


31 
2.8% 


28 
2.5% 


253 
22.9% 


53 
4.8% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


200 
18.1% 


1,105 
100.0% 


464 
42.0% 


3B 

% of Total 


402 

41.3% 


19 
2.0% 


27 
2.8% 


160 
16.4% 


66 
6.8% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


299 

30.7% 


973 
100.0% 


199 

20.5% 


4 
% of Total 


213 
35.8% 


22 
3.7% 


43 
7.2% 


228 
38.3% 


10 
1.7% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


79 
13.3% 


595 

100.0% 


147 
24.7% 


5 
% of Total 


623 
48.7% 


31 
2.4% 


20 
1.6% 


325 
25.4% 


15 
1.2% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


266 
20.8% 


1,280 
100.0% 


415 
32.4% 


6A 
% of Total 


51 
22.3% 


6 
2.6% 


4 
1.7% 


79 
34.5% 


19 

8.3% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


70 
30.6% 


229 
100.0% 


78 
34.1% 


6B 

% of Total 


90 

41.7% 


2 
0.9% 


12 
5.6% 


57 
26.4% 


7 
3.2% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


48 
22.2% 


216 
100.0% 


41 
19.0% 


7 
% of Total 


690 

41.4% 


45 
2.7% 


9 

0.5% 


483 
29.0% 


70 
4.2% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


371 
22.2% 


1,668 
100.0% 


508 

30.5% 


8 
% of Total 


338 
20.6% 


94 
5.7% 


58 
3.5% 


298 
18.1% 


64 
3.9% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


791 
48.1% 


1,643 
100.0% 


286 

17.4% 


9 
% of Total 


727 

41.1% 


96 
5.4% 


17 
1.0% 


556 
31.5% 


35 
2.0% 


1 

0.1% 



0.0% 


335 
19.0% 


1,767 
100.0% 


742 
42.0% 


10 
% of Total 


546 

20.1% 


45 
1.7% 


39 
1.4% 


293 
10.8% 


896 
32.9% 




0.0% 




0.0% 


902 
33.1% 


2,721 
100.0% 


475 
17.5% ; 


11 
% of Total 


266 
34.3% 


31 

4.0% 


17 

2.2% 


189 
24.4% 


17 
2.2% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


256 

33.0% 


776 
100.0% 


246 
31.7% 


12 
% of Total 


120 

25.1% 


9 
1.9% 


17 
3.5% 


63 
13.2% 


31 
6.5% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


239 
49.9% 


479 
100.0% 


125 
26.1% 


13 

% of Total 


178 
26.4% 


35 
5.2% 


40 
5.9% 


145 
21.5% 


19 
2.8% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


257 
38.1% 


674 
100.0% 


164 

24.3% 


14 
% of Total 


147 
31.6% 


22 
4.7% 


15 
3.2% 


143 
30.8% 


44 
9.5% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


94 
20.2% 


465 
100.0% 


169 

36.3% 


15A 

% of Total 


427 
62.4% 


11 

1.6% 


16 
2.3% 


105 
15.4% 


2 
0.3% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


123 
18.0% 


684 
100.0% 


429 
62.7% i 


15B 

% of Total 


80 
34.6% 


4 
1.7% 


11 
4.8% 


30 
13.0% 


13 
5.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


93 
40.3% 


231 
100.0% 


56 
24.2% 


16A 

% of Total 


55 
26.8% 


4 
2.0% 


3 

1.5% 


28 
13.7% 


9 

4.4% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


106 

51.7% 


205 
100.0% 


52 
25.4% 


16B 

% of Total 


293 
32.6% 


3 

0.3% 


10 

1.1% 


35 
3.9% 


38 
4.2% 



0.0% 


1 

0.1% 


519 

57.7% 


899 

100.0% 


150 
16.7% ; 


This table 


is provided 


jecause prosecutorial districts are not coterminous with superior 


court districts 


(See the district maps in 


Part H.) 



154 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 



rosecutorial 
District 

17A 
'o of Total 


Guilty 
As 
Charged 

583 
47.8% 


Pleas 
Lesser 
Offense 

69 
5.7% 


Jury 

Trials 

9 

0.7% 




0A Dismissal 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 


0.0% 


Other 

325 
26.7% 


Total 
Dispositions 

1,219 
100.0% 


Total 


Without 
Leave 

185 
15.2% 


With 
Leave 

48 
3.9% 


After Deferred 
Prosecution 


0.0% 


Negotiated 
Pleas 

528 
43.3% 


17B 

'o of Total 


585 
61.8% 


34 

3.6% 


13 

1.4% 


78 
8.2% 


9 

1.0% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


227 
24.0% 


946 
100.0% 


307 
32.5% 


18 

b of Total 


270 
44.4% 


27 
4.4% 


18 

3.0% 


88 
14.5% 


26 
4.3% 




0.0% 




0.0% 


179 
29.4% 


608 
100.0% 


216 
35.5% 


19A 

\ of Total 


196 

17.2% 


25 

2.2% 


37 
3.2% 


295 
25.9% 


42 
3.7% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


545 
47.8% 


1,140 

100.0% 


139 

12.2% 


19B 

'o of Total 


281 
31.2% 


14 
1.6% 


15 
1.7% 


257 
28.5% 


99 
11.0% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


235 
26.1% 


901 

100.0% 


215 
23.9% 


20 

h of Total 


564 
24.4% 


73 
3.2% 


41 
1.8% 


688 
29.8% 


67 
2.9% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


875 
37.9% 


2,308 
100.0% 


632 
27.4% 


21 

'o of Total 


923 
39.3% 


75 
3.2% 


28 
1.2% 


507 
21.6% 


211 
9.0% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


604 
25.7% 


2,348 
100.0% 


711 
30.3% 


22 
'o of Total 


306 
18.3% 


35 

2.1% 


27 
1.6% 


214 
12.8% 


35 
2.1% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


1,053 
63.1% 


1,670 
100.0% 


174 
10.4% 


23 
'o of Total 


125 
20.0% 


14 
2.2% 


27 
4.3% 


58 

9.3% 


38 
6.1% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


364 
58.1% 


626 
100.0% 


65 
10.4% 


24 

& of Total 


69 

24.6% 


3 

1.1% 


26 
9.3% 


104 
37.1% 


2 
0.7% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


76 
27.1% 


280 
100.0% 


32 
11.4% 


25 
& of Total 


724 
28.1% 


109 
4.2% 


39 
1.5% 


616 
23.9% 


166 
6.4% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


921 
35.8% 


2,575 
100.0% 


444 
17.2% 


26 

& of Total 


191 
9.1% 


338 
16.1% 


61 
2.9% 


913 
43.6% 


84 
4.0% 


1 

0.0% 



0.0% 


505 
24.1% 


2,093 
100.0% 


341 
16.3% 


27A 
& of Total 


231 
s 32.4% 


28 
3.9% 


51 

7.1% 


238 
33.3% 


39 
5.5% 



0.0% 




0.0% 


127 
17.8% 


714 
100.0% 


193 
27.0% 


27B 

& of Total 


90 
21.3% 


9 
2.1% 


13 
3.1% 


104 
24.6% 


1 
0.2% 


1 

0.2% 



0.0% 


205 
48.5% 


423 
100.0% 


24 
5.7% 


28 
& of Total 


222 
40.5% 


7 
1.3% 


21 
3.8% 


66 
12.0% 


31 
5.7% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


201 
36.7% 


548 
100.0% 


204 
37.2% 


29 

6 of Total 


590 
36.7% 


28 
1.7% 


40 
2.5% 


257 
16.0% 


88 
5.5% 




0.0% 


3 
0.2% 


600 
37.4% 


1,606 
100.0% 


336 

20.9% 


30 

fo of Total 


281 
34.6% 


45 
5.5% 


45 
5.5% 


229 

28.2% 


66 
8.1% 




0.0% 



0.0% 


145 
17.9% 


811 
100.0% 


265 
32.7% 


State Totals 
Yo of Total 


12,826 
32.3% 


1,596 
4.0% 


969 

2.4% 


8,766 
22.0% 


2,540 
6.4% 


3 
0.0% 


4 
0.0% 


13,055 
32.8% 


39,759 
100.0% 


9,977 

25.1% 



This table is provided because prosecutorial districts are not coterminous with superior court districts. (See the district maps in Part II.) 



155 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 











Ages of Pe 


nding Case 


s (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 1 






















Camden 


Fel 


1 











2 





3 


402.7 


573.0 




Mis 


1 


4 


3 


9 


8 





25 


286.2 


269.0 


Chowan 


Fel 


24 


7 


11 


8 


128 


9 


187 


460.8 


538.0 




Mis 


9 


7 


4 


31 


29 


23 


103 


457.1 


381.0 


Currituck 


Fel 


20 


57 


11 


5 


8 


1 


102 


141.1 


108.0 




Mis 


31 


14 


8 


15 


19 


5 


92 


237.5 


165.0 


Dare 


Fel 


87 


16 


7 


31 


43 


1 


185 


206.5 


110.0 




Mis 


84 


7 


33 


41 


11 


2 


178 


153.5 


112.0 


Gates 


Fel 


9 





13 


3 





1 


26 


145.5 


157.0 




Mis 


12 


1 


2 


8 


2 





25 


179.2 


109.0 


Pasquotank 


Fel 


87 


24 


77 


26 


37 


3 


254 


179.2 


137.0 




Mis 


78 


20 


15 


30 


23 


5 


171 


180.8 


101.0 


Perquimans 


Fel 


2 


1 


16 


3 


4 


11 


37 


456.5 


164.0 




Mis 


28 


8 


2 


21 


14 


7 


80 


282.1 


181.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


230 


105 


135 


76 


222 


26 


794 


259.6 


143.0 






29.0% 


13.2% 


17.0% 


9.6% 


28.0% 


3.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


243 


61 


67 


155 


106 


42 


674 


239.4 


146.0 






36.1% 


9.1% 


9.9% 


23.0% 


15.7% 


6.2% 


100.0% 






District 2 






















Beaufort 


Fel 


84 


50 


14 


24 


15 


1 


188 


122.3 


94.0 




Mis 


92 


19 


19 


10 








140 


81.1 


66.0 


Hyde 


Fel 


6 


2 


5 





2 





15 


135.3 


94.0 




Mis 


5 





4 


1 








10 


87.3 


98.0 


Martin 


Fel 


55 


13 


15 


17 


3 





103 


113.2 


83.0 




Mis 


30 


10 


6 


21 


3 





70 


143.3 


110.0 


Tyrrell 


Fel 


8 





5 











13 


76.9 


46.0 




Mis 


16 


4 


9 


2 








31 


86.6 


61.0 


Washington 


Fel 


18 


19 


37 


20 








94 


131.9 


130.0 




Mis 


29 


6 


7 


10 








52 


100.4 


62.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


171 


84 


76 


61 


20 


1 


413 


121.3 


102.0 






41.4% 


20.3% 


18.4% 


14.8% 


4.8% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


172 


39 


45 


44 


3 





303 


99.6 


79.0 






56.8% 


12.9% 


14.9% 


14.5% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 3A 






















Pitt 


Fel 


386 


84 


281 


69 


209 


19 


1,048 


201.9 


129.5 






36.8% 


8.0% 


26.8% 


6.6% 


19.9% 


1.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


412 


28 


34 


31 


16 


5 


526 


71.4 


32.5 






78.3% 


5.3% 


6.5% 


5.9% 


3.0% 


1.0% 


100.0% 







156 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 











Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 3B 






















Carteret 


Fel 


103 


8 


26 


2 


4 


2 


145 


88.7 


51.0 




Mis 


49 


3 


6 


5 


2 


1 


66 


107.9 


51.0 


Craven 


Fel 


116 


46 


15 


48 


29 


30 


284 


247.0 


110.0 




Mis 


52 


7 


2 


6 


5 


3 


75 


143.7 


48.0 


Pamlico 


Fel 


31 








12 


2 





45 


123.5 


61.0 




Mis 


5 





6 


2 


1 





14 


154.6 


151.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


250 


54 


41 


62 


35 


32 


474 


186.8 


82.0 






52.7% 


11.4% 


8.6% 


13.1% 


7.4% 


6.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


106 


10 


14 


13 


8 


4 


155 


129.5 


52.0 






68.4% 


6.5% 


9.0% 


8.4% 


5.2% 


2.6% 


100.0% 






District 4A 






















Duplin 


Fel 


44 


29 


28 











101 


96.5 


94.0 




Mis 


7 


1 


7 











15 


104.5 


94.0 


Jones 


Fel 


8 





5 











13 


86.9 


38.0 




Mis 


2 





2 





1 





5 


194.4 


159.0 


Sampson 


Fel 


67 


21 


13 


6 





1 


108 


83.0 


66.0 




Mis 


22 


2 


5 


3 








32 


77.8 


74.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


119 


50 


46 


6 





1 


222 


89.3 


86.0 






53.6% 


22.5% 


20.7% 


2.7% 


0.0% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


31 


3 


14 


3 


1 





52 


96.7 


77.5 






59.6% 


5.8% 


26.9% 


5.8% 


1.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 4B 






















Onslow 


Fel 


324 


12 


97 


25 


1 





459 


76.2 


60.0 






70.6% 


2.6% 


21.1% 


5.4% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


65 


3 


22 


8 


2 





100 


89.9 


60.0 






65.0% 


3.0% 


22.0% 


8.0% 


2.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 5 






















New Hanover 


Fel 


260 


75 


112 


115 


43 


48 


653 


217.2 


117.0 




Mis 


298 


103 


75 


106 


47 


35 


664 


183.1 


109.0 


Pender 


Fel 


28 


17 


3 


21 


3 


11 


83 


293.5 


108.0 




Mis 


9 


3 


1 


8 


4 


5 


30 


381.1 


228.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


288 


92 


115 


136 


46 


59 


736 


225.8 


117.0 






39.1% 


12.5% 


15.6% 


18.5% 


6.3% 


8.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


307 


106 


76 


114 


51 


40 


694 


191.6 


109.0 






44.2% 


15.3% 


11.0% 


16.4% 


7.3% 


5.8% 


100.0% 






District 6A 






















Halifax 


Fel 


237 


29 


49 


46 


31 


2 


394 


128.2 


75.0 






60.2% 


7.4% 


12.4% 


11.7% 


7.9% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


65 


15 


20 


52 


18 


2 


172 


180.8 


130.0 






37.8% 


8.7% 


11.6% 


30.2% 


10.5% 


1.2% 


100.0% 







157 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 











Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 6B 






















Bertie 


Fel 


15 


1 


4 











20 


63.5 


65.0 




Mis 


11 


4 


4 


2 


6 


5 


32 


338.6 


148.0 


Hertford 


Fel 


39 





16 


13 


19 


4 


91 


222.2 


136.0 




Mis 


29 


2 


4 


13 


8 


3 


59 


220.1 


111.0 


Northampton 


Fel 


46 


7 





9 


11 





73 


168.7 


61.0 




Mis 


19 


2 


2 


6 


2 


2 


33 


181.3 


66.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


100 


8 


20 


22 


30 


4 


184 


183.7 


69.0 






54.3% 


4.3% 


10.9% 


12.0% 


16.3% 


2.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


59 


8 


10 


21 


16 


10 


124 


240.4 


108.0 






47.6% 


6.5% 


8.1% 


16.9% 


12.9% 


8.1% 


100.0% 






District 7A 






















Nash 


Fel 


168 


23 


34 


80 


63 


13 


381 


197.6 


110.0 






44.1% 


6.0% 


8.9% 


21.0% 


16.5% 


3.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


54 


15 


4 


23 


8 


4 


108 


165.1 


95.0 






50.0% 


13.9% 


3.7% 


21.3% 


7.4% 


3.7% 


100.0% 






District 7B-C 






















Edgecombe 


Fel 


58 


4 


9 


16 


155 


11 


253 


423.3 


460.0 




Mis 


19 


6 


4 


16 


132 


19 


196 


495.7 


470.5 


Wilson 


Fel 


233 


58 


55 


78 


40 


25 


489 


197.6 


102.0 




Mis 


28 


6 


20 


44 


22 


30 


150 


415.2 


257.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


291 


62 


64 


94 


195 


36 


742 


274.5 


135.0 






39.2% 


8.4% 


8.6% 


12.7% 


26.3% 


4.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


47 


12 


24 


60 


154 


49 


346 


460.8 


425.0 






13.6% 


3.5% 


6.9% 


17.3% 


44.5% 


14.2% 


100.0% 






District 8A 






















Greene 


Fel 


4 


20 





13 


4 





41 


189.4 


101.0 




Mis 


21 


1 


4 


7 


1 





34 


96.9 


61.5 


Lenoir 


Fel 


102 


12 


19 


31 


22 


5 


191 


167.1 


73.0 




Mis 


154 


1 


45 


27 


12 





239 


101.7 


44.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


106 


32 


19 


44 


26 


5 


232 


171.0 


101.0 






45.7% 


13.8% 


8.2% 


19.0% 


11.2% 


2.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


175 


2 


49 


34 


13 





273 


101.1 


44.0 






64.1% 


0.7% 


17.9% 


12.5% 


4.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 8B 






















Wayne 


Fel 


126 


10 


79 


60 


19 


4 


298 


157.9 


124.0 






42.3% 


3.4% 


26.5% 


20.1% 


6.4% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


188 


34 


52 


78 


32 


9 


393 


171.1 


100.0 






47.8% 


8.7% 


13.2% 


19.8% 


8.1% 


2.3% 


100.0% 







158 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 











Ages of Pt 


'nding Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 9 






















Franklin 


Fel 


91 


28 


6 


28 


•1 


4 


161 


136.1 


80.0 




Mis 


53 


13 


27 


23 


1-1 


17 


149 


274.9 


124.0 


Granville 


Fel 


156 


18 


27 


17 


6 


1 


225 


89.2 


37.0 




Mis 


58 


17 


17 


36 


11 


3 


142 


180.0 


114.0 


Person 


Fel 


136 


9 


12 


34 


22 


28 


241 


213.6 


53.0 




Mis 


90 


1 


24 


37 


26 


13 


191 


219.9 


131.0 


Vance 


Fel 


243 


■17 


47 


40 


23 


13 


413 


141.0 


59.0 




Mis 


105 


27 


62 


35 


35 


19 


283 


243.7 


125.0 


Warren 


Fel 


52 


6 


17 


15 


5 


2 


97 


149.9 


65.0 




Mis 


39 


1 


8 


24 


14 


15 


101 


365.7 


200.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


678 


108 


109 


134 


60 


48 


1,137 


146.2 


59.0 






59.6% 


9.5% 


9.6% 


11.8% 


5.3% 


4.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


345 


59 


138 


157 


100 


67 


866 


247.6 


125.0 






39.8% 


6.8% 


15.9% 


18.1% 


11.5% 


7.7% 


100.0% 






District 10A-D 






















Wake 


Fel 


999 


112 


275 


320 


299 


137 


2,142 


213.4 


110.0 






46.6% 


5.2% 


12.8% 


14.9% 


14.0% 


6.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


328 


28 


53 


71 


47 


9 


536 


131.6 


48.0 






61.2% 


5.2% 


9.9% 


13.2% 


8.8% 


1.7% 


100.0% 






District 11 






















Harnett 


Fel 


105 


19 


23 


3 


10 


5 


165 


123.0 


55.0 




Mis 


22 


3 





5 


5 


3 


38 


225.6 


74.0 


Johnston 


Fel 


63 


30 


36 


38 


7 


2 


176 


170.6 


117.0 




Mis 


70 


15 


6 


16 


4 





111 


111.1 


79.0 


Lee 


Fel 


97 


15 


3 


12 


9 


1 


137 


109.1 


67.0 




Mis 


41 


12 


5 


4 








62 


68.2 


45.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


265 


64 


62 


53 


26 


8 


478 


136.5 


82.0 






55.4% 


13.4% 


13.0% 


11.1% 


5.4% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


133 


30 


11 


25 


9 


3 


211 


119.1 


72.0 






63.0% 


14.2% 


5.2% 


11.8% 


4.3% 


1.4% 


100.0% 






District 12A-C 






















Cumberland 


Fel 


497 


110 


209 


214 


88 


22 


1,140 


160.3 


103.0 






43.6% 


9.6% 


18.3% 


18.8% 


7.7% 


1.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


91 


18 


20 


36 


18 


3 


186 


167.7 


96.0 






48.9% 


9.7% 


10.8% 


19.4% 


9.7% 


1.6% 


100.0% 







159 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 











Ages of Pending Case 


5 (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 13 






















Bladen 


Fel 


209 


S 


15 


22 


4 





258 


65.5 


25.0 




Mis 


57 


3 


5 


9 


6 


1 


81 


103.3 


46.0 


Brunswick 


Fel 


54 


157 


25 


19 


16 





271 


134.7 


110.0 




Mis 


30 


5 


11 


13 


5 


1 


65 


154.4 


104.0 


Columbus 


Fel 


26 


19 


18 


22 


12 


1 


98 


178.3 


130.0 




Mis 


37 


14 


9 


5 


9 





74 


129.0 


81.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


289 


184 


58 


63 


32 


1 


627 


113.0 


108.0 






46.1% 


29.3% 


9.3% 


10.0% 


5.1% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


124 


22 


25 


27 


20 


2 


220 


127.0 


67.0 






56.4% 


10.0% 


11.4% 


12.3% 


9.1% 


0.9% 


100.0% 






District 14A-B 






















Durham 


Fel 


413 


99 


160 


619 


983 


111 


2,385 


345.7 


360.0 






17.3% 


4.2% 


6.7% 


26.0% 


41.2% 


4.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


71 


17 


12 


43 


59 


21 


223 


325.9 


236.0 






31.8% 


7.6% 


5.4% 


19.3% 


26.5% 


9.4% 


100.0% 






District 15A 






















Alamance 


Fel 


554 


54 


88 


106 


9 





811 


93.4 


67.0 






68.3% 


6.7% 


10.9% 


13.1% 


1.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


175 


23 


39 


15 


1 


1 


254 


82.5 


59.5 






68.9% 


9.1% 


15.4% 


5.9% 


0.4% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 15B 






















Chatham 


Fel 


111 


1 


51 


42 


22 





227 


147.4 


122.0 




Mis 


15 





6 


14 


5 


2 


42 


217.3 


181.5 


Orange 


Fel 


140 


30 


63 


17 


7 


2 


259 


106.4 


72.0 




Mis 


21 


7 


6 


8 


2 





44 


116.8 


109.5 


District Totals 


Fel 


251 


31 


114 


59 


29 


2 


486 


125.6 


89.0 






51.6% 


6.4% 


23.5% 


12.1% 


6.0% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


36 


7 


12 


22 


7 


2 


86 


165.9 


119.5 






41.9% 


8.1% 


14.0% 


25.6% 


8.1% 


2.3% 


100.0% 






District 16A 






















Hoke 


Fel 


97 





46 


25 


4 


1 


173 


131.7 


90.0 




Mis 


33 





18 


8 


6 


1 


66 


150.9 


105.5 


Scotland 


Fel 


115 


20 


82 


41 


16 


4 


278 


152.5 


122.0 




Mis 


20 


2 


16 


9 


2 


3 


52 


203.1 


123.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


212 


20 


128 


66 


20 


5 


451 


144.5 


117.0 






47.0% 


4.4% 


28.4% 


14.6% 


4.4% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


53 


2 


34 


17 


8 


4 


118 


173.9 


123.0 






44.9% 


1.7% 


28.8% 


14.4% 


6.8% 


3.4% 


100.0% 






District 16B 






















Robeson 


Fel 


298 


163 


195 


207 


30 


26 


919 


165.8 


103.0 






32.4% 


17.7% 


21.2% 


22.5% 


3.3% 


2.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


249 


74 


67 


102 


75 


36 


603 


210.9 


108.0 






41.3% 


12.3% 


11.1% 


16.9% 


12.4% 


6.0% 


100.0% 







160 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 











Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 17A 






















Caswell 


Fel 


26 


1 


4 


2 








33 


70.7 


46.0 




Mis 


31 


3 


7 


3 








44 


73.3 


52.0 


Rockingham 


Fel 


224 


66 


94 


163 


100 


9 


656 


193.0 


144.0 




Mis 


164 


37 


62 


76 


31 


4 


374 


153.4 


109.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


250 


67 


98 


165 


100 


9 


689 


187.1 


135.0 






36.3% 


9.7% 


14.2% 


23.9% 


14.5% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


195 


40 


69 


79 


31 


4 


418 


145.0 


101.0 






46.7% 


9.6% 


16.5% 


18.9% 


7.4% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






District 17B 






















Stokes 


Fel 


172 


8 


46 


10 


10 


1 


247 


100.3 


87.0 




Mis 


34 


21 


12 


26 


5 


1 


99 


153.0 


111.0 


Surry 


Fel 


93 


10 


22 


20 


29 





174 


160.9 


76.0 




Mis 


78 


20 


47 


14 


4 


2 


165 


111.8 


96.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


265 


18 


68 


30 


39 


1 


421 


125.4 


87.0 






62.9% 


4.3% 


16.2% 


7.1% 


9.3% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


112 


41 


59 


40 


9 


3 


264 


127.3 


100.0 






42.4% 


15.5% 


22.3% 


15.2% 


3.4% 


1.1% 


100.0% 






District 18A-E 






















juilford 


Fel 


1,190 


225 


276 


316 


306 


79 


2,392 


183.3 


98.0 






49.7% 


9.4% 


11.5% 


13.2% 


12.8% 


3.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


202 


21 


55 


42 


49 


5 


374 


170.1 


72.0 






54.0% 


5.6% 


14.7% 


11.2% 


13.1% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






District 19A 






















Cabarrus 


Fel 


237 


43 


132 


181 


37 





630 


148.1 


124.0 






37.6% 


6.8% 


21.0% 


28.7% 


5.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


152 


50 


91 


70 


32 





395 


142.8 


114.0 






38.5% 


12.7% 


23.0% 


17.7% 


8.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 19B 






















Montgomery 


Fel 


69 


8 


25 


24 


28 





154 


159.4 


123.0 




Mis 


45 


3 


17 


27 


7 


1 


100 


154.8 


123.0 


Randolph 


Fel 


117 


31 


57 


71 


35 


12 


323 


200.7 


136.0 




Mis 


112 


22 


34 


23 


20 


6 


217 


155.3 


82.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


186 


39 


82 


95 


63 


12 


477 


187.4 


136.0 






39.0% 


8.2% 


17.2% 


19.9% 


13.2% 


2.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


157 


25 


51 


50 


27 


7 


317 


155.2 


94.0 






49.5% 


7.9% 


16.1% 


15.8% 


8.5% 


2.2% 


100.0% 






District 19C 






















Rowan 


Fel 


365 


41 


122 


120 


24 





672 


118.3 


77.5 






54.3% 


6.1% 


18.2% 


17.9% 


3.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


77 


13 


38 


30 


3 





161 


119.9 


103.0 






47.8% 


8.1% 


23.6% 


18.6% 


1.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







161 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 











Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 20A 






















Anson 


Fel 


20 


2 


16 


1 








39 


85.5 


67.0 




Mis 


43 


1 


3 


7 


3 


1 


58 


113.5 


41.5 


Moore 


Fel 


214 


20 


43 


43 


22 


3 


345 


132.5 


62.0 




Mis 


82 


5 


28 


15 


6 


3 


139 


135.6 


62.0 


Richmond 


Fel 


187 


25 


20 


16 


1 





249 


75.9 


55.0 




Mis 


135 


13 


15 


18 


5 





186 


87.2 


54.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


421 


47 


79 


60 


23 


3 


633 


107.4 


61.0 






66.5% 


7.4% 


12.5% 


9.5% 


3.6% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


260 


19 


46 


40 


14 


4 


383 


108.7 


55.0 






67.9% 


5.0% 


12.0% 


10.4% 


3.7% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






District 20B 






















Stanly 


Fel 


101 


33 


37 


17 


4 


2 


194 


112.5 


81.0 




Mis 


97 


40 


42 


21 


9 


1 


210 


118.5 


97.5 


Union 


Fel 


142 


14 


98 


116 


15 


4 


389 


166.6 


128.0 




Mis 


84 


22 


80 


50 


41 


15 


292 


266.0 


156.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


243 


47 


135 


133 


19 


6 


583 


148.6 


122.0 






'41.7% 


8.1% 


23.2% 


22.8% 


3.3% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


181 


62 


122 


71 


50 


16 


502 


204.3 


122.5 






36.1% 


12.4% 


24.3% 


14.1% 


10.0% 


3.2% 


100.0% 






District 21A-D 






















Forsyth 


Fel 


405 


94 


66 


89 


11 


2 


667 


100.5 


72.0 






60.7% 


14.1% 


9.9% 


13.3% 


1.6% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


187 


11 


6 


15 


9 


1 


229 


79.6 


47.0 






81.7% 


4.8% 


2.6% 


6.6% 


3.9% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 22 






















Alexander 


Fel 


22 


22 


16 


21 


4 


2 


87 


164.5 


116.0 




Mis 


46 


6 


4 


16 


2 





74 


118.2 


76.5 


Davidson 


Fel 


147 


27 


25 


26 


4 





229 


98.6 


79.0 




Mis 


84 


12 


19 


15 


7 





137 


100.3 


44.0 


Davie 


Fel 


8 


5 


15 


3 








31 


129.3 


143.0 




Mis 


33 


4 


3 


2 


2 





44 


87.4 


67.0 


Iredell 


Fel 


149 


188 


91 


89 


10 





527 


128.0 


100.0 




Mis 


161 


40 


78 


18 


11 





308 


103.7 


75.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


326 


242 


147 


139 


18 


2 


874 


124.0 


100.0 






37.3% 


27.7% 


16.8% 


15.9% 


2.1% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


324 


62 


104 


51 


22 





563 


103.5 


69.0 






57.5% 


11.0% 


18.5% 


9.1% 


3.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 










162 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 











Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


Hstrict 23 






















klleghany 


Fcl 


13 





2 


3 


6 





24 


214.3 


77.0 




Mis 


10 








11 


3 





24 


229.6 


252.5 


ishe 


Fel 


8 





7 


9 


2 


2 


28 


250.9 


170.5 




Mis 


24 


1 


4 


5 


2 


2 


38 


157.8 


41.0 


Vilkes 


Fel 


97 


17 


17 


33 


10 


4 


178 


158.6 


84.5 




Mis 


60 


28 


23 


24 


9 





144 


127.6 


95.0 


r adkin 


Fel 


32 


3 


1 


4 


1 


1 


42 


100.6 


59.0 




Mis 


25 


6 


5 


15 


1 





52 


131.1 


107.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


150 


20 


27 


49 


19 


7 


272 


164.0 


81.0 






55.1% 


7.4% 


9.9% 


18.0% 


7.0% 


2.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


119 


35 


32 


55 


15 


2 


258 


142.2 


95.0 






46.1% 


13.6% 


12.4% 


21.3% 


5.8% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






Mstrict 24 






















ivery 


Fcl 


39 





4 


o 





24 


67 


390.6 


76.0 




Mis 


21 





2 


4 


2 


4 


33 


198.2 


66.0 


ladison 


Fel 


44 


2 


10 


3 


6 


5 


70 


174.7 


38.0 




Mis 


11 





3 


1 








15 


80.5 


45.0 


Mitchell 


Fel 


25 


28 


1 


9 


5 


1 


69 


155.3 


109.0 




Mis 


5 





5 


5 


4 


2 


21 


289.3 


194.0 


Vatauga 


Fel 


22 


2 


79 


62 


12 


2 


179 


219.2 


179.0 




Mis 


23 


14 


17 


27 


31 


2 


114 


264.8 


199.0 


r ancey 


Fel 





17 


4 


2 


2 


1 


26 


175.1 


111.0 




Mis 


5 





1 


8 








14 


158.4 


199.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


130 


49 


98 


76 


25 


33 


411 


226.1 


137.0 






31.6% 


11.9% 


23.8% 


18.5% 


6.1% 


8.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


65 


14 


28 


45 


37 


8 


197 


234.7 


167.0 






33.0% 


7.1% 


14.2% 


22.8% 


18.8% 


4.1% 


100.0% 






Hstrict 25A 






















nrke 


Fel 


157 


16 


60 


89 


56 


15 


393 


222.5 


146.0 




Mis 


227 


62 


64 


94 


20 


5 


472 


144.3 


100.0 


Caldwell 


Fel 


189 


69 


68 


145 


42 


13 


526 


186.3 


132.5 




Mis 


175 


51 


78 


130 


36 


7 


477 


169.3 


130.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


346 


85 


128 


234 


98 


28 


919 


201.8 


137.0 






37.6% 


9.2% 


13.9% 


25.5% 


10.7% 


3.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


402 


113 


142 


224 


56 


12 


949 


156.9 


111.0 






42.4% 


11.9% 


15.0% 


23.6% 


5.9% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






Hstrict 25B 






















-atawba 


Fel 


323 


84 


125 


116 


63 


1 


712 


146.3 


102.0 






45.4% 


11.8% 


17.6% 


16.3% 


8.8% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


252 


114 


40 


35 


18 





459 


94.0 


68.0 






54.9% 


24.8% 


8.7% 


7.6% 


3.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







163 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 

CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 











Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 26A-C 






















Mecklenburg 


Fcl 


729 


112 


228 


169 


97 


28 


1,363 


147.8 


83.0 






53.5% 


8.2% 


16.7% 


12.4% 


7.1% 


2.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


421 


94 


146 


198 


117 


10 


986 


171.2 


110.0 






42.7% 


9.5% 


14.8% 


20.1% 


11.9% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






District 27A 






















Gaston 


Fel 


407 


54 


157 


268 


136 


1 


1,023 


181.3 


145.0 






39.8% 


5.3% 


15.3% 


26.2% 


13.3% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


92 


27 


41 


93 


48 


5 


306 


216.4 


178.0 






30.1% 


8.8% 


13.4% 


30.4% 


15.7% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






District 27B 






















Cleveland 


Fel 


175 


57 


52 


107 


63 


12 


466 


201.6 


123.0 




Mis 


29 


11 


9 


23 


11 


16 


99 


298.5 


216.0 


Lincoln 


Fel 


128 


39 


61 


141 


67 


9 


445 


222.7 


172.0 




Mis 


54 


7 


14 


17 


18 


4 


114 


197.6 


110.0 


District Totals 


Fcl 


303 


96 


113 


248 


130 


21 


911 


211.9 


153.0 






33.3% 


10.5% 


12.4% 


27.2% 


14.3% 


2.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


83 


18 


23 


40 


29 


20 


213 


244.5 


138.0 






39.0% 


8.5% 


10.8% 


18.8% 


13.6% 


9.4% 


100.0% 






District 28 






















Buncombe 


Fel 


450 


91 


123 


258 


99 


6 


1,027 


161.6 


114.0 






43.8% 


8.9% 


12.0% 


25.1% 


9.6% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


190 


16 


26 


32 


7 





271 


92.8 


59.0 






70.1% 


5.9% 


9.6% 


11.8% 


2.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 29 






















Henderson 


Fcl 


96 


21 


89 


66 


59 


3 


334 


236.6 


171.0 




Mis 


54 


14 


36 


79 


18 


1 


202 


200.8 


178.0 


McDowell 


Fel 


42 


25 


12 


45 


40 


7 


171 


286.4 


221.0 




Mis 


44 


16 


16 


40 


24 


12 


152 


275.9 


194.5 


Polk 


Fel 


47 





13 


32 


14 


5 


111 


254.3 


150.0 




Mis 


26 


1 


3 


9 


6 





45 


155.5 


90.0 


Rutherford 


Fel 


130 


34 


81 


61 


37 


9 


352 


182.0 


129.0 




Mis 


180 


54 


92 


74 


21 


7 


428 


144.1 


101.0 


Transylvania 


Fel 


42 





18 


5 


35 


37 


137 


565.5 


382.0 




Mis 


9 


2 


8 


6 


18 


14 


57 


491.5 


426.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


357 


80 


213 


209 


185 


61 


1,105 


269.5 


151.0 






32.3% 


7.2% 


19.3% 


18.9% 


16.7% 


5.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


313 


87 


155 


208 


87 


34 


884 


202.7 


138.5 






35.4% 


9.8% 


17.5% 


23.5% 


9.8% 


3.8% 


100.0% 










164 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 











Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 30A 






















Cherokee 


Fel 


36 





•4 


2 


15 


2 


59 


194.1 


62.0 




Mis 


26 





3 


2 


2 


5 


38 


204.6 


80.0 


Clay 


Fel 


15 


3 


1-1 











$2 


89.9 


103.0 




Mis 


4 


2 


1 


(i 


1 





8 


141.3 


99.5 


Graham 


Fel 


2 





4 


3 


3 





14 


347.9 


303.0 




Mis 


7 


2 


5 


3 





2 


19 


233.4 


139.0 


Macon 


Fel 


11 


1 


6 


18 


5 





41 


222.3 


255.0 




Mis 


25 





S 


2 


2 


(1 


37 


94.9 


45.0 


Swain 


Fel 


28 


1 





5 


2 





36 


99.4 


40.0 




Mis 


7 


2 








9 


(t 


18 


260.8 


259.5 


District Totals 


Fel 


92 


5 


28 


28 


27 


2 


182 


175.2 


80.5 






50.5% 


2.7% 


15.4% 


15.4% 


14.8% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


69 


6 


17 


7 


14 


7 


120 


179.6 


86.5 






57.5% 


5.0% 


14.2% 


5.8% 


11.7% 


5.8% 


100.0% 






District 30B 






















Haywood 


Fel 


38 


21 


2 


12 


8 


5 


86 


179.0 


104.0 




Mis 


32 


5 


8 


3 


8 


1 


57 


138.8 


55.0 


Jackson 


Fel 


13 





6 


3 


2 


11 


35 


439.3 


132.0 




Mis 


20 


1 


4 


1 








26 


72.7 


59.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


51 


21 


8 


15 


10 


16 


121 


254.3 


107.0 






42.1% 


17.4% 


6.6% 


12.4% 


8.3% 


13.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


52 


6 


12 


4 


8 


1 


83 


118.1 


59.0 






62.7% 


7.2% 


14.5% 


4.8% 


9.6% 


1.2% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


Fel 


14,478 


3,150 


4,907 


5,620 


4,002 


880 


33,037 


184.5 


110.0 






43.8% 


9.5% 


14.9% 


17.0% 


12.1% 


2.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


7,434 


1,490 


2,145 


2,580 


1,454 


452 


15,555 


170.7 


100.0 






47.8% 


9.6% 


13.8% 


16.6% 


9.3% 


2.9% 


100.0% 







165 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES PENDING 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 



Prosecutorial 






Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 

Age 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


1 


Fcl 


230 


105 


135 


76 


222 


26 


794 


259.6 


143.0 




% of Total 


29.0% 


13.2% 


17.0% 


9.6% 


28.0% 


3.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


243 


61 


67 


155 


106 


42 


674 


239.4 


146.0 




% of Total 


36.1% 


9.1% 


9.9% 


23.0% 


15.7% 


6.2% 


100.0% 






2 


Fcl 


171 


84 


76 


61 


20 


1 


413 


121.3 


102.0 




% of Total 


41.4% 


20.3% 


18.4% 


14.8% 


4.8% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


172 


39 


45 


44 


3 





303 


99.6 


79.0 




% of Total 


56.8% 


12.9% 


14.9% 


14.5% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






3A 


Fcl 


386 


84 


281 


69 


209 


19 


1,048 


201.9 


129.5 




% of Total 


36.8% 


8.0% 


26.8% 


6.6% 


19.9% 


1.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


412 


28 


34 


31 


16 


5 


526 


71.4 


32.5 




% of Total 


78.3% 


5.3% 


6.5% 


5.9% 


3.0% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






3B 


Fel 


250 


54 


41 


62 


35 


32 


474 


186.8 


82.0 




% of Total 


52.7% 


11.4% 


8.6% 


13.1% 


7.4% 


6.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


106 


10 


14 


13 


8 


4 


155 


129.5 


52.0 




% of Total 


68.4% 


6.5% 


9.0% 


8.4% 


5.2% 


2.6% 


100.0% 






4 


Fel 


443 


62 


143 


31 


1 


1 


681 


80.5 


60.0 




% of Total 


65.1% 


9.1% 


21.0% 


4.6% 


0.1% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


96 


6 


36 


11 


3 





152 


92.2 


76.0 




% of Total 


63.2% 


3.9% 


23.7% 


7.2% 


2.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






5 


Fel 


288 


92 


115 


136 


46 


59 


736 


225.8 


117.0 




% of Total 


39.1% 


12.5% 


15.6% 


18.5% 


6.3% 


8.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


307 


106 


76 


114 


51 


40 


694 


191.6 


109.0 




% of Total 


44.2% 


15.3% 


11.0% 


16.4% 


7.3% 


5.8% 


100.0% 






6A 


Fel 


237 


29 


49 


46 


31 


2 


394 


128.2 


75.0 




% of Total 


60.2% 


7.4% 


12.4% 


11.7% 


7.9% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


65 


15 


20 


52 


18 


2 


172 


180.8 


130.0 




% of Total 


37.8% 


8.7% 


11.6% 


30.2% 


10.5% 


1.2% 


100.0% 






615 


Fel 


100 


8 


20 


22 


30 


4 


184 


183.7 


69.0 




% of Total 


54.3% 


4.3% 


10.9% 


12.0% 


16.3% 


2.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


59 


8 


10 


21 


16 


10 


124 


240.4 


108.0 




% of Total 


47.6% 


6.5% 


8.1% 


16.9% 


12.9% 


8.1% 


100.0% 






7 


Fel 


459 


85 


98 


174 


258 


49 


1,123 


248.4 


135.0 




% of Total 


40.9% 


7.6% 


8.7% 


15.5% 


23.0% 


4.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


101 


27 


28 


83 


162 


53 


454 


390.4 


307.5 




% of Total 


22.2% 


5.9% 


6.2% 


18.3% 


35.7% 


11.7% 


100.0% 






8 


Fel 


232 


42 


98 


104 


45 


9 


530 


163.6 


110.0 




% of Total 


43.8% 


7.9% 


18.5% 


19.6% 


8.5% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


363 


36 


101 


112 


45 


9 


666 


142.4 


80.0 




% of Total 


54.5% 


5.4% 


15.2% 


16.8% 


6.8% 


1.4% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts are not coterminous with superior court districts. (See the district maps in Part II.) 



166 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES PENDING 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 



Prosecutorial 






Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


9 


Fcl 


678 


108 


109 


134 


60 


■18 


1,137 


146.2 


59.0 




% of Total 


59.6% 


9.5% 


9.6% 


11.8% 


5.3% 


4.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


345 


59 


138 


157 


100 


67 


866 


247.6 


125.0 




% of Total 


39.8% 


6.8% 


15.9% 


18.1% 


11.5% 


7.7% 


100.0% 






10 


Fcl 


999 


112 


275 


320 


299 


137 


2,142 


213.4 


110.0 




% of Total 


46.6% 


5.2% 


12.8% 


14.9% 


14.0% 


6.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


328 


28 


53 


71 


47 


9 


536 


131.6 


48.0 




% of Total 


61.2% 


5.2% 


9.9% 


13.2% 


8.8% 


1.7% 


100.0% 






11 


Fcl 


265 


64 


62 


53 


26 


8 


478 


136.5 


82.0 




% of Total 


55.4% 


13.4% 


13.0% 


11.1% 


5.4% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


133 


30 


11 


25 


9 


3 


211 


119.1 


72.0 




% of Total 


63.0% 


14.2% 


5.2% 


11.8% 


4.3% 


1.4% 


100.0% 






12 


Fel 


497 


110 


209 


214 


88 


22 


1,140 


160.3 


103.0 




% of Total 


43.6% 


9.6% 


18.3% 


18.8% 


7.7% 


1.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


91 


18 


20 


36 


18 


3 


186 


167.7 


96.0 




% of Total 


48.9% 


9.7% 


10.8% 


19.4% 


9.7% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






13 


Fel 


289 


184 


58 


63 


M 


1 


627 


113.0 


108.0 




% of Total 


46.1% 


29.3% 


9.3% 


10.0% 


5.1% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


124 


22 


25 


27 


20 


2 


220 


127.0 


67.0 




% of Total 


56.4% 


10.0% 


11.4% 


12.3% 


9.1% 


0.9% 


100.0% 






14 


Fcl 


413 


99 


160 


619 


983 


111 


2,385 


345.7 


360.0 




% of Total 


17.3% 


4.2% 


6.7% 


26.0% 


41.2% 


4.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


71 


17 


12 


43 


59 


21 


223 


325.9 


236.0 




% of Total 


31.8% 


7.6% 


5.4% 


19.3% 


26.5% 


9.4% 


100.0% 






15A 


Fcl 


554 


54 


88 


106 


9 





811 


93.4 


67.0 




% of Total 


68.3% 


6.7% 


10.9% 


13.1% 


1.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


175 


23 


39 


15 


1 


1 


254 


82.5 


59.5 




% of Total 


68.9% 


9.1% 


15.4% 


5.9% 


0.4% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






15B 


Fel 


251 


31 


114 


59 


29 


2 


486 


125.6 


89.0 




% of Total 


51.6% 


6.4% 


23.5% 


12.1% 


6.0% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


36 


7 


12 


22 


7 


2 


86 


165.9 


119.5 




% of Total 


41.9% 


8.1% 


14.0% 


25.6% 


8.1% 


2.3% 


100.0% 






16A 


Fel 


212 


20 


128 


66 


20 


5 


451 


144.5 


117.0 




% of Total 


47.0% 


4.4% 


28.4% 


14.6% 


4.4% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


53 


2 


34 


17 


8 


4 


118 


173.9 


123.0 




% of Total 


44.9% 


1.7% 


28.8% 


14.4% 


6.8% 


3.4% 


100.0% 






16B 


Fel 


298 


163 


195 


207 


30 


26 


919 


165.8 


103.0 




% of Total 


32.4% 


17.7% 


21.2% 


22.5% 


3.3% 


2.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


249 


74 


67 


102 


75 


36 


603 


210.9 


108.0 




% of Total 


41.3% 


12.3% 


11.1% 


16.9% 


12.4% 


6.0% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts are not coterminous with superior court districts. (See the district maps in Part II.) 



167 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES PENDING 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 



Prosecutorial 






Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


17A 


Fel 


250 


67 


98 


165 


100 


9 


689 


187.1 


135.0 




% of Total 


36.3% 


9.7% 


14.2% 


23.9% 


14.5% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


195 


40 


69 


79 


31 


4 


418 


145.0 


101.0 




% of Total 


46.7% 


9.6% 


16.5% 


18.9% 


7.4% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






17B 


Fel 


265 


IS 


68 


30 


39 


1 


421 


125.4 


87.0 




% of Total 


62.9% 


4.3% 


16.2% 


7.1% 


9.3% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


112 


41 


59 


40 


9 


3 


264 


127.3 


100.0 




% of Total 


42.4% 


15.5% 


22.3% 


15.2% 


3.4% 


1.1% 


100.0% 






18 


Fel 


1,190 


225 


276 


316 


306 


79 


2,392 


183.3 


98.0 




% of Total 


49.7% 


9.4% 


11.5% 


13.2% 


12.8% 


3.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


202 


21 


55 


42 


49 


5 


374 


170.1 


72.0 




% of Total 


54.0% 


5.6% 


14.7% 


11.2% 


13.1% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






19A 


Fel 


602 


84 


254 


301 


61 





1,302 


132.8 


107.0 




% of Total 


46.2% 


6.5% 


19.5% 


23.1% 


4.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


229 


63 


129 


100 


35 





556 


136.2 


114.0 




% of Total 


41.2% 


11.3% 


23.2% 


18.0% 


6.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






19B 


Fel 


186 


39 


82 


95 


63 


12 


477 


187.4 


136.0 




% of Total 


39.0% 


8.2% 


17.2% 


19.9% 


13.2% 


2.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


157 


25 


51 


50 


27 


7 


317 


155.2 


94.0 




% of Total 


49.5% 


7.9% 


16.1% 


15.8% 


8.5% 


2.2% 


100.0% 






20 


Fel 


664 


94 


214 


193 


42 


9 


1,216 


127.1 


86.0 




% of Total 


54.6% 


7.7% 


17.6% 


15.9% 


3.5% 


0.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


441 


81 


168 


111 


64 


20 


885 


163.0 


95.0 




% of Total 


49.8% 


9.2% 


19.0% 


12.5% 


7.2% 


2.3% 


100.0% 






21 


Fel 


405 


94 


66 


89 


11 


2 


667 


100.5 


72.0 




% of Total 


60.7% 


14.1% 


9.9% 


13.3% 


1.6% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


187 


11 


6 


15 


9 


1 


229 


79.6 


47.0 




% of Total 


81.7% 


4.8% 


2.6% 


6.6% 


3.9% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






22 


Fel 


326 


242 


147 


139 


IX 


2 


874 


124.0 


100.0 




% of Total 


37.3% 


27.7% 


16.8% 


15.9% 


2.1% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


324 


62 


104 


51 


22 





563 


103.5 


69.0 




% of Total 


57.5% 


11.0% 


18.5% 


9.1% 


3.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






23 


Fel 


150 


20 


27 


49 


19 


7 


272 


164.0 


81.0 




% of Total 


55.1% 


7.4% 


9.9% 


18.0% 


7.0% 


2.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


119 


35 


32 


55 


15 


2 


258 


142.2 


95.0 




% of Total 


46.1% 


13.6% 


12.4% 


21.3% 


5.8% 


0.8% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts are not coterminous with superior court districts. (See the district maps in Part II.) 



168 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES PENDING 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 



Prosecutoi 


ial 






Ages of Pel 


iding Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 


District 


0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


24 


Fel 


130 


49 


98 


76 


25 


33 


411 


226.1 


137.0 




% of Total 


31.6% 


11.9% 


23.8% 


18.5% 


6.1% 


8.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


65 


14 


28 


45 


37 


8 


197 


234.7 


167.0 




% of Total 


33.0% 


7.1% 


14.2% 


22.8% 


18.8% 


4.1% 


100.0% 






25 


Fel 


669 


169 


253 


350 


161 


29 


1,631 


177.6 


115.0 




% of Total 


41.0% 


10.4% 


15.5% 


21.5% 


9.9% 


1.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


654 


227 


182 


259 


74 


12 


1,408 


136.4 


96.0 




% of Total 


46.4% 


16.1% 


12.9% 


18.4% 


5.3% 


0.9% 


100.0% 






26 


Fel 


729 


112 


228 


169 


97 


28 


1,363 


147.8 


83.0 




% of Total 


53.5% 


8.2% 


16.7% 


12.4% 


7.1% 


2.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


421 


94 


146 


198 


117 


10 


986 


171.2 


110.0 




% of Total 


42.7% 


9.5% 


14.8% 


20.1% 


11.9% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






27A 


Fel 


407 


54 


157 


268 


136 


1 


1,023 


181.3 


145.0 




% of Total 


39.8% 


5.3% 


15.3% 


26.2% 


13.3% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


92 


27 


41 


93 


48 


5 


306 


216.4 


178.0 




% of Total 


30.1% 


8.8% 


13.4% 


30.4% 


15.7% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






27B 


Fel 


303 


96 


113 


248 


130 


21 


911 


211.9 


153.0 




% of Total 


33.3% 


10.5% 


12.4% 


27.2% 


14.3% 


2.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


83 


18 


23 


40 


29 


20 


213 


244.5 


138.0 




% of Total 


39.0% 


8.5% 


10.8% 


18.8% 


13.6% 


9.4% 


100.0% 






28 


Fel 


450 


91 


123 


258 


99 


6 


1,027 


161.6 


114.0 




% of Total 


43.8% 


8.9% 


12.0% 


25.1% 


9.6% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


190 


16 


26 


32 


7 





271 


92.8 


59.0 




% of Total 


70.1% 


5.9% 


9.6% 


11.8% 


2.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






29 


Fel 


357 


80 


213 


209 


185 


61 


1,105 


269.5 


151.0 




% of Total 


32.3% 


7.2% 


19.3% 


18.9% 


16.7% 


5.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


313 


87 


155 


208 


87 


34 


884 


202.7 


138.5 




% of Total 


35.4% 


9.8% 


17.5% 


23.5% 


9.8% 


3.8% 


100.0% 






30 


Fel 


143 


26 


36 


43 


37 


18 


303 


206.8 


104.0 




% of Total 


47.2% 


8.6% 


11.9% 


14.2% 


12.2% 


5.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


121 


12 


29 


11 


22 


8 


203 


154.4 


80.0 




% of Total 


59.6% 


5.9% 


14.3% 


5.4% 


10.8% 


3.9% 


100.0% 






State Totals Fel 


14,478 


3,150 


4,907 


5,620 


4,002 


880 


33,037 


184.5 


110.0 




% of Total 


43.8% 


9.5% 


14.9% 


17.0% 


12.1% 


2.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


7,434 


1,490 


2,145 


2,580 


1,454 


452 


15,555 


170.7 


100.0 




% of Total 


47.8% 


9.6% 


13.8% 


16.6% 


9.3% 


2.9% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts are not coterminous with superior court districts. (See the district maps in Part II.) 



169 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 











Ages of Disposed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 1 






















Camden 


Fel 


16 


6 





2 


1 


1 


26 


116.6 


55.0 




Mis 


34 


8 


5 


16 








63 


109.6 


83.0 


Chowan 


Fel 


68 


10 


2} 


18 


115 


1 


235 


289.4 


323.0 




Mis 


51 


21 


33 


27 


7 





139 


137.4 


120.0 


Currituck 


Fel 


21 


5 


5 


7 


4 





42 


136.5 


89.0 




Mis 


82 


31 


18 


8 


8 





147 


108.6 


81.0 


Dare 


Fel 


99 


27 


101 


137 


17 


1 


382 


177.2 


152.0 




Mis 


212 


35 


68 


92 


23 





430 


133.8 


97.0 


Gates 


Fel 


41 


5 


28 


22 








96 


136.1 


130.0 




Mis 


37 


13 


23 


16 


8 





97 


143.7 


113.0 


Pasquotank 


Fel 


147 


50 


41 


95 


23 





356 


154.0 


111.0 




Mis 


264 


87 


86 


89 


27 


1 


554 


124.5 


97.0 


Perquimans 


Fel 


19 


7 


8 


14 


7 





55 


175.5 


134.0 




Mis 


33 


21 


11 


24 


4 


3 


96 


159.5 


110.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


411 


110 


206 


295 


167 


3 


1,192 


186.3 


133.5 






34.5% 


9.2% 


17.3% 


24.7% 


14.0% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


713 


216 


244 


272 


77 


4 


1,526 


129.6 


101.0 






46.7% 


14.2% 


16.0% 


17.8% 


5.0% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 2 






















Beaufort 


Fel 


241 


74 


88 


62 


18 





483 


117.4 


91.0 




Mis 


253 


76 


54 


39 


13 





435 


97.6 


77.0 


Hyde 


Fel 


4 


1 


8 


16 


1 





30 


193.0 


220.0 




Mis 


8 





9 


9 








26 


145.5 


137.0 


Martin 


Fel 


104 


31 


27 


52 


6 


1 


221 


129.3 


100.0 




Mis 


99 


16 


16 


39 


10 


3 


183 


143.8 


83.0 


Tyrrell 


Fel 


15 


25 


1 


6 








47 


113.3 


109.0 




Mis 


39 


8 


8 


7 


1 





63 


103.4 


83.0 


Washington 


Fel 


66 


15 


26 


28 


4 





139 


118.9 


97.0 




Mis 


71 


17 


5 


5 


2 





100 


82.5 


62.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


430 


146 


150 


164 


29 


1 


920 


122.7 


94.0 






46.7% 


15.9% 


16.3% 


17.8% 


3.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


470 


117 


92 


99 


26 


3 


807 


108.2 


77.0 






58.2% 


14.5% 


11.4% 


12.3% 


3.2% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 3A 






















Pitt 


Fel 


570 


260 


254 


261 


89 


92 


1,526 


187.0 


109.0 






37.4% 


17.0% 


16.6% 


17.1% 


5.8% 


6.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


644 


199 


132 


97 


27 


6 


1,105 


96.6 


72.0 






58.3% 


18.0% 


11.9% 


8.8% 


2.4% 


0.5% 


100.0% 







170 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 











Ages of Di 


•.posed ( ases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 3B 






















Carteret 


Fel 


282 


40 


68 


61 


4 


5 


460 


109.7 


83.0 




Mis 


266 


36 


37 


25 


9 


2 


375 


88.8 


61.0 


Craven 


Fel 


453 


57 


38 


110 


34 


9 


701 


115.4 


55.0 




Mis 


442 


33 


44 


48 


8 





575 


65.9 


33.0 


Pamlico 


Fel 


94 


9 


30 


11 





5 


149 


125.7 


89.0 




Mis 


17 


1 


1 


3 





1 


23 


104.1 


48.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


829 


106 


136 


182 


38 


19 


1,310 


114.6 


70.0 






63.3% 


8.1% 


10.4% 


13.9% 


2.9% 


1.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


725 


70 


82 


76 


17 


3 


973 


75.6 


48.0 






74.5% 


7.2% 


8.4% 


7.8% 


1.7% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 4A 






















Duplin 


Fel 


442 


39 


8 


19 


3 


1 


512 


50.0 


28.0 




Mis 


75 


19 


7 


3 








104 


63.2 


48.5 


Jones 


Fel 


41 





9 


14 








64 


95.3 


74.0 




Mis 


13 


2 


1 











16 


55.0 


70.5 


Sampson 


Fel 


456 


81 


113 


55 


8 


1 


714 


80.5 


56.0 




Mis 


84 


11 


6 


5 


1 





107 


56.5 


34.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


939 


120 


130 


88 


11 


2 


1,290 


69.1 


41.0 






72.8% 


9.3% 


10.1% 


6.8% 


0.9% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


172 


32 


14 


8 


1 





227 


59.5 


42.0 






75.8% 


14.1% 


6.2% 


3.5% 


0.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 4B 






















Onslow 


Fel 


885 


187 


148 


79 


15 


3 


1,317 


82.8 


58.0 






67.2% 


14.2% 


11.2% 


6.0% 


1.1% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


226 


38 


51 


53 








368 


87.9 


59.0 






61.4% 


10.3% 


13.9% 


14.4% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 5 






















New Hanover 


Fel 


1,078 


201 


279 


185 


34 


2 


1,779 


98.5 


75.0 




Mis 


784 


123 


132 


93 


18 


4 


1,154 


81.9 


59.0 


Pender 


Fel 


325 


52 


39 


24 


3 





443 


73.1 


40.0 




Mis 


92 


19 


14 


1 








126 


65.5 


61.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


1,403 


253 


318 


209 


37 


2 


2,222 


93.4 


70.0 






63.1% 


11.4% 


14.3% 


9.4% 


1.7% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


876 


142 


146 


94 


18 


4 


1,280 


80.3 


59.0 






68.4% 


11.1% 


11.4% 


7.3% 


1.4% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 6A 






















Halifax 


Fel 


226 


68 


53 


44 


55 


4 


450 


147.5 


90.0 






50.2% 


15.1% 


11.8% 


9.8% 


12.2% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


111 


19 


26 


50 


23 





229 


147.7 


94.0 






48.5% 


8.3% 


11.4% 


21.8% 


10.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







171 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 











Ages of Dis 


posed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 6B 






















Bertie 


Fcl 


75 


21 


12 


30 


2 





140 


108.9 


74.0 




Mis 


27 


5 


4 


12 


6 





54 


147.8 


99.5 


Hertford 


Fel 


155 


24 


38 


48 


53 


1 


319 


160.5 


96.0 




Mis 


35 


6 


15 


19 


13 





88 


177.0 


129.0 


Northampton 


Fel 


185 


11 


13 


47 


8 





264 


108.2 


48.0 




Mis 


47 


5 


10 


9 


3 





74 


100.4 


55.0 


District Totals 


Fcl 


415 


56 


63 


125 


63 


1 


723 


131.4 


64.0 






57.4% 


7.7% 


8.7% 


17.3% 


8.7% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


109 


16 


29 


40 


22 





216 


143.5 


87.5 






50.5% 


7.4% 


13.4% 


18.5% 


10.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 7A 






















Nash 


Fel 


654 


113 


189 


118 


38 


4 


1,116 


103.7 


77.0 






58.6% 


10.1% 


16.9% 


10.6% 


3.4% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


628 


73 


67 


52 


28 





848 


84.8 


56.0 






74.1% 


8.6% 


7.9% 


6.1% 


3.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 7B-C 






















Edgecombe 


Fel 


490 


112 


105 


156 


156 


20 


1,039 


179.9 


99.0 




Mis 


226 


36 


61 


89 


80 


2 


494 


179.0 


112.5 


Wilson 


Fel 


587 


103 


87 


81 


32 


3 


893 


93.5 


59.0 




Mis 


189 


32 


56 


38 


11 





326 


108.2 


70.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


1,077 


215 


192 


237 


188 


23 


1,932 


140.0 


76.0 






55.7% 


11.1% 


9.9% 


12.3% 


9.7% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


415 


68 


117 


127 


91 


2 


820 


150.9 


89.0 






50.6% 


8.3% 


14.3% 


15.5% 


11.1% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 8A 






















Greene 


Fcl 


53 


16 


14 


22 


9 





114 


138.6 


94.0 




Mis 


51 


7 


18 


12 


5 





93 


115.4 


87.0 


Lenoir 


Fel 


306 


81 


91 


100 


29 





607 


117.3 


86.0 




Mis 


197 


39 


77 


71 


7 





391 


111.2 


90.0 


District Totals 


Fcl 


359 


97 


105 


122 


38 





721 


120.6 


92.0 






49.8% 


13.5% 


14.6% 


16.9% 


5.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


248 


46 


95 


83 


12 





484 


112.0 


90.0 






51.2% 


9.5% 


19.6% 


17.1% 


2.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 8B 






















Wayne 


Fcl 


331 


97 


121 


200 


36 


5 


790 


143.1 


107.0 






41.9% 


12.3% 


15.3% 


25.3% 


4.6% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


501 


139 


190 


281 


44 


4 


1,159 


134.1 


107.0 






43.2% 


12.0% 


16.4% 


24.2% 


3.8% 


0.3% 


100.0% 







172 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 











Ages of Di 


>posed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 9 






















Franklin 


Fel 


304 


48 


91) 


34 


9 


1 


486 


96.1 


73.0 




Mis 


165 


53 


76 


31 


3 


4 


332 


119.4 


91.0 


Granville 


Fel 


199 


66 


42 


38 


42 


6 


393 


151.2 


88.0 




Mis 


159 


35 


27 


36 


15 


11 


283 


139.9 


80.0 


Person 


Fel 


217 


72 


111 


48 


22 


2 


472 


128.1 


104.0 




Mis 


184 


42 


64 


34 


15 


3 


342 


126.1 


83.0 


Vance 


Fel 


399 


77 


81 


109 


40 


4 


710 


128.9 


81.5 




Mis 


313 


83 


93 


115 


38 


7 


649 


138.9 


92.0 


Warren 


Fel 


46 


27 


21 


64 


13 


2 


173 


191.9 


154.0 




Mis 


48 


21 


20 


60 


12 





161 


170.4 


153.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


1,165 


290 


345 


293 


126 


15 


2,234 


130.4 


87.0 






52.1% 


13.0% 


15.4% 


13.1% 


5.6% 


0.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


869 


234 


280 


276 


83 


25 


1,767 


135.8 


91.0 






49.2% 


13.2% 


15.8% 


15.6% 


4.7% 


1.4% 


100.0% 






District 10A-D 






















Wake 


Fel 


2,819 


496 


456 


427 


118 


49 


4,365 


106.2 


68.0 






64.6% 


11.4% 


10.4% 


9.8% 


2.7% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


2,354 


137 


115 


87 


27 


1 


2,721 


59.2 


41.0 






86.5% 


5.0% 


4.2% 


3.2% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 11 






















Harnett 


Fel 


281 


149 


90 


104 


31 


18 


673 


154.3 


103.0 




Mis 


120 


16 


25 


29 


16 


11 


217 


174.6 


86.0 


Johnston 


Fel 


313 


66 


130 


52 


12 


1 


574 


99.8 


85.0 




Mis 


230 


26 


36 


25 


8 





325 


79.3 


48.0 


Lee 


Fel 


292 


37 


24 


28 


10 





391 


83.6 


55.0 




Mis 


147 


35 


24 


26 


2 





234 


90.3 


75.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


886 


252 


244 


184 


53 


19 


1,638 


118.3 


85.0 






54.1% 


15.4% 


14.9% 


11.2% 


3.2% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


497 


77 


85 


80 


26 


11 


776 


109.3 


64.5 






64.0% 


9.9% 


11.0% 


10.3% 


3.4% 


1.4% 


100.0% 






District 12A-C 






















Cumberland 


Fel 


1,069 


240 


288 


320 


84 


13 


2,014 


120.9 


83.0 






53.1% 


11.9% 


14.3% 


15.9% 


4.2% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


312 


34 


48 


53 


30 


2 


479 


106.5 


55.0 






65.1% 


7.1% 


10.0% 


11.1% 


6.3% 


0.4% 


100.0% 







[73 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 











Ages of Dis 


posed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 
Age 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


District 13 






















Bladen 


Fcl 


118 


48 


41 


39 


13 





259 


126.7 


102.0 




Mis 


86 


34 


28 


48 


17 





213 


145.3 


106.0 


Brunswick 


Fel 


176 


32 


52 


102 


38 


12 


412 


196.5 


119.0 




Mis 


81 


21 


30 


28 


8 





168 


127.6 


96.5 


Columbus 


Fel 


69 


16 


63 


121 


38 


3 


310 


216.3 


182.0 




Mis 


82 


43 


57 


84 


24 


3 


293 


175.8 


154.0 


District Totals 


Fcl 


363 


96 


156 


262 


89 


15 


981 


184.3 


132.0 






37.0% 


9.8% 


15.9% 


26.7% 


9.1% 


1.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


249 


98 


115 


160 


49 


3 


674 


154.1 


119.0 






36.9% 


14.5% 


17.1% 


23.7% 


7.3% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 14A-B 






















Durham 


Fcl 


621 


121 


178 


373 


403 


70 


1,766 


246.7 


167.0 






35.2% 


6.9% 


10.1% 


21.1% 


22.8% 


4.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


227 


44 


51 


76 


39 


28 


465 


216.1 


94.0 






48.8% 


9.5% 


11.0% 


16.3% 


8.4% 


6.0% 


100.0% 






District 15A 






















Alamance 


Fcl 


978 


411 


289 


150 


19 





1,847 


94.7 


86.0 






53.0% 


22.3% 


15.6% 


8.1% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


468 


106 


61 


47 


2 





684 


74.1 


62.0 






68.4% 


15.5% 


8.9% 


6.9% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 15B 






















Chatham 


Fel 


79 


29 


56 


73 


22 


1 


260 


173.3 


159.0 




Mis 


34 


8 


9 


9 


6 





66 


137.4 


82.0 


Orange 


Fel 


252 


100 


89 


93 


26 





560 


127.2 


98.0 




Mis 


108 


17 


24 


15 


1 





165 


89.2 


62.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


331 


129 


145 


166 


48 


1 


820 


141.8 


109.0 






40.4% 


15.7% 


17.7% 


20.2% 


5.9% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


142 


25 


33 


24 


7 





231 


103.0 


74.0 






61.5% 


10.8% 


14.3% 


10.4% 


3.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 16A 






















Hoke 


Fcl 


177 


41 


24 


43 


5 





290 


94.4 


72.0 




Mis 


34 


5 


11 


11 


1 





62 


98.9 


75.5 


Scotland 


Fel 


211 


85 


43 


102 


22 


4 


467 


134.9 


103.0 




Mis 


53 


19 


21 


39 


11 





143 


169.2 


120.0 


District Totals 


Fcl 


388 


126 


67 


145 


27 


4 


757 


119.4 


89.0 






51.3% 


16.6% 


8.9% 


19.2% 


3.6% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


87 


24 


32 


50 


12 





205 


148.0 


112.0 






42.4% 


11.7% 


15.6% 


24.4% 


5.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 16B 






















Robeson 


Fcl 


1,056 


408 


604 


541 


124 


16 


2,749 


142.1 


113.0 






38.4% 


14.8% 


22.0% 


19.7% 


4.5% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


467 


89 


129 


134 


71 


9 


899 


139.9 


85.0 






51.9% 


9.9% 


14.3% 


14.9% 


7.9% 


1.0% 


100.0% 







174 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 











Ages of Di 


sposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 17A 






















Caswell 


Fel 


65 


L9 


31 


15 








130 


100.2 


91.0 




Mis 


143 


33 


37 


15 


5 





233 


93.3 


75.0 


Rockingham 


Fel 


340 


128 


199 


276 


314 


24 


1,281 


237.8 


168.0 




Mis 


332 


133 


256 


215 


50 





986 


147.6 


127.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


405 


147 


230 


291 


314 


24 


1,411 


225.1 


152.0 






28.7% 


10.4% 


16.3% 


20.6% 


22.3% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


475 


166 


293 


230 


55 





1,219 


137.2 


116.0 






39.0% 


13.6% 


24.0% 


18.9% 


4.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 17B 






















Stokes 


Fel 


254 


24 


28 


79 


13 





398 


108.5 


58.0 




Mis 


153 


44 


53 


31 


8 





289 


107.3 


83.0 


Surry 


Fel 


478 


130 


130 


60 


5 


2 


805 


91.9 


70.0 




Mis 


418 


95 


86 


57 


1 





657 


87.0 


76.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


732 


154 


158 


139 


18 


2 


1,203 


97.4 


68.0 






60.8% 


12.8% 


13.1% 


11.6% 


1.5% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


571 


139 


139 


88 


9 





946 


93.2 


78.0 






60.4% 


14.7% 


14.7% 


9.3% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 18A-E 






















Guilford 


Fel 


2,322 


534 


568 


598 


353 


17 


4,392 


133.9 


84.0 






52.9% 


12.2% 


12.9% 


13.6% 


8.0% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


340 


59 


63 


75 


69 


2 


608 


133.2 


79.5 






55.9% 


9.7% 


10.4% 


12.3% 


11.3% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 19A 






















Cabarrus 


Fel 


472 


181 


228 


144 


17 





1,042 


113.1 


100.0 






45.3% 


17.4% 


21.9% 


13.8% 


1.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


237 


133 


198 


140 


33 


1 


742 


141.2 


122.0 






31.9% 


17.9% 


26.7% 


18.9% 


4.4% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 19B 






















Montgomery 


Fel 


49 


83 


70 


67 


14 


2 


285 


165.0 


127.0 




Mis 


104 


46 


57 


46 


14 


3 


270 


151.1 


112.0 


Randolph 


Fel 


313 


110 


208 


352 


118 


26 


1,127 


203.2 


162.0 




Mis 


240 


90 


110 


127 


53 


11 


631 


167.9 


113.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


362 


193 


278 


419 


132 


28 


1,412 


195.5 


154.0 






25.6% 


13.7% 


19.7% 


29.7% 


9.3% 


2.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


344 


136 


167 


173 


67 


14 


901 


162.9 


113.0 






38.2% 


15.1% 


18.5% 


19.2% 


7.4% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






District 19C 






















Rowan 


Fel 


382 


108 


204 


237 


33 


2 


966 


137.4 


118.0 






39.5% 


11.2% 


21.1% 


24.5% 


3.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


171 


49 


72 


74 


30 


2 


398 


147.5 


105.0 






43.0% 


12.3% 


18.1% 


18.6% 


7.5% 


0.5% 


100.0% 







175 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 











Ages of Disposed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 20A 






















Anson 


Fel 


176 


43 


47 


2} 


3 





292 


88.4 


63.5 




Mis 


248 


28 


16 


17 


5 


1 


315 


73.4 


48.0 


Moore 


Fel 


361 


100 


262 


124 


100 


9 


956 


153.1 


123.0 




Mis 


339 


67 


74 


61 


13 


12 


566 


111.2 


62.0 


Richmond 


Fel 


546 


125 


88 


26 


5 


22 


812 


100.1 


62.0 




Mis 


414 


56 


55 


31 


18 


9 


583 


99.0 


56.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


1,083 


268 


397 


173 


108 


31 


2,060 


123.0 


81.0 






52.6% 


13.0% 


19.3% 


8.4% 


5.2% 


1.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,001 


151 


145 


109 


36 


22 


1,464 


98.2 


55.0 






68.4% 


10.3% 


9.9% 


7.4% 


2.5% 


1.5% 


100.0% 






District 20B 






















Stanly 


Fel 


123 


33 


68 


39 


5 


4 


272 


131.6 


99.0 




Mis 


211 


37 


77 


28 


17 





370 


104.8 


74.5 


Union 


Fel 


493 


79 


76 


121 


14 


5 


788 


105.8 


69.0 




Mis 


223 


63 


92 


69 


23 


4 


474 


137.5 


99.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


616 


112 


144 


160 


19 


9 


1,060 


112.4 


82.0 






58.1% 


10.6% 


13.6% 


15.1% 


1.8% 


0.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


434 


100 


169 


97 


40 


4 


844 


123.2 


89.0 






51.4% 


11.8% 


20.0% 


11.5% 


4.7% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 21A-D 






















Forsyth 


Fel 


1,328 


405 


820 


585 


195 


1 


3,334 


136.6 


116.0 






39.8% 


12.1% 


24.6% 


17.5% 


5.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,364 


245 


253 


308 


140 


38 


2,348 


127.9 


74.0 






58.1% 


10.4% 


10.8% 


13.1% 


6.0% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






District 22 






















Alexander 


Fel 


40 


34 


77 


31 


7 


2 


191 


168.3 


168.0 




Mis 


92 


If) 


43 


21 


14 


3 


183 


143.1 


90.0 


Davidson 


Fel 


412 


105 


89 


131 


21 





758 


119.7 


80.5 




Mis 


436 


48 


58 


96 


10 





648 


89.4 


43.0 


Davie 


Fel 


31 


19 


10 


12 








72 


113.3 


97.0 




Mis 


98 


15 


23 


7 


10 


1 


154 


109.5 


66.0 


Iredell 


Fel 


468 


97 


194 


112 


45 


9 


925 


130.6 


90.0 




Mis 


418 


80 


93 


76 


15 


3 


685 


103.3 


69.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


951 


255 


370 


286 


73 


11 


1,946 


129.4 


93.0 






48.9% 


13.1% 


19.0% 


14.7% 


3.8% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,044 


153 


217 


200 


49 


7 


1,670 


102.8 


67.0 






62.5% 


9.2% 


13.0% 


12.0% 


2.9% 


0.4% 


100.0% 







176 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 











Ages of Di 


sposed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 23 






















Alleghany 


Fel 


12 


3 


2 


14 


11 


1 


43 


245.7 


250.0 




Mis 


7 


S 


9 


17 


2 


5 


48 


263.4 


194.5 


Ashe 


Fel 


13 


4 


11 


18 


2 


2 


50 


201.5 


170.0 




Mis 


16 


8 


16 


14 


8 





62 


194.9 


163.5 


Wilkes 


Fel 


133 


67 


173 


41 


22 


2 


438 


140.2 


136.0 




Mis 


135 


56 


70 


80 


27 


6 


374 


165.8 


119.0 


Yadkin 


Fel 


41 


21 


10 


18 


3 





93 


128.3 


97.0 




Mis 


77 


12 


28 


20 


5 





142 


114.4 


82.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


199 


95 


196 


91 


38 


5 


624 


150.6 


133.0 






31.9% 


15.2% 


31.4% 


14.6% 


6.1% 


0.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


235 


84 


123 


131 


42 


11 


626 


164.5 


119.0 






37.5% 


13.4% 


19.6% 


20.9% 


6.7% 


1.8% 


100.0% 






District 24 






















Avery 


Fel 


22 


5 


9 


11 


14 


2 


63 


217.2 


139.0 




Mis 


21 


7 


6 


8 


5 





47 


155.7 


98.0 


Vladison 


Fel 


53 


2 


21 


19 


11 





106 


162.6 


97.0 




Mis 


22 


5 


7 


6 








40 


92.4 


83.0 


Mitchell 


Fel 


22 





3 


34 


10 


1 


70 


238.3 


271.0 




Mis 


7 


1 


5 


5 


6 


2 


26 


320.7 


183.5 


Watauga 


Fel 


108 


9 


50 


66 


32 


2 


267 


176.9 


139.0 




Mis 


56 


18 


13 


26 


8 





121 


135.1 


95.0 


Yancey 


Fel 


10 


2 


12 


22 


8 





54 i 


229.1 


203.0 




Mis 


4 


1 


2 


32 


7 





46 


256.0 


241.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


215 


18 


95 


152 


75 


5 


560 


191.4 


154.0 






38.4% 


3.2% 


17.0% 


27.1% 


13.4% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


110 


32 


33 


77 


26 


2 


280 


169.6 


118.0 






39.3% 


11.4% 


11.8% 


27.5% 


9.3% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






District 25A 






















Burke 


Fel 


132 


54 


85 


205 


81 


10 


567 


222.1 


183.0 




Mis 


290 


39 


171 


274 


35 


3 


812 


157.0 


153.0 


Caldwell 


Fel 


102 


54 


117 


342 


108 


7 


730 


236.5 


206.0 




Mis 


125 


21 


141 


354 


69 


10 


720 


222.9 


199.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


234 


108 


202 


547 


189 


17 


1,297 


230.2 


199.0 






18.0% 


8.3% 


15.6% 


42.2% 


14.6% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


415 


60 


312 


628 


104 


13 


1,532 


188.0 


176.0 






27.1% 


3.9% 


20.4% 


41.0% 


6.8% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 25B 






















Catawba 


Fel 


318 


98 


208 


378 


115 


21 


1,138 


197.6 


155.0 






27.9% 


8.6% 


18.3% 


33.2% 


10.1% 


1.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


448 


125 


247 


159 


51 


13 


1,043 


142.6 


109.0 






43.0% 


12.0% 


23.7% 


15.2% 


4.9% 


1.2% 


100.0% 







177 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 











Ages of Dis 


posed Case 


» (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 26A-C 






















Mecklenburg 


Fel 


2,632 


487 


635 


538 


90 


24 


4,406 


101.7 


71.0 






59.7% 


11.1% 


14.4% 


12.2% 


2.0% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


975 


323 


320 


340 


119 


16 


2,093 


138.4 


99.0 






46.6% 


15.4% 


15.3% 


16.2% 


5.7% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 27A 






















Gaston 


Fel 


908 


200 


371 


390 


179 


14 


2,062 


150.0 


112.0 






44.0% 


9.7% 


18.0% 


18.9% 


8.7% 


0.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


222 


77 


129 


193 


82 


11 


714 


194.0 


148.0 






31.1% 


10.8% 


18.1% 


27.0% 


11.5% 


1.5% 


100.0% 






District 27B 






















Cleveland 


Fel 


327 


94 


126 


162 


112 


5 


826 


172.1 


117.5 




Mis 


100 


15 


40 


46 


19 


5 


225 


162.8 


107.0 


Lincoln 


Fel 


174 


61 


61 


111 


48 


2 


457 


170.1 


117.0 




Mis 


140 


14 


24 


19 


1 





198 


75.4 


58.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


501 


155 


187 


273 


160 


7 


1,283 


171.4 


117.0 






39.0% 


12.1% 


14.6% 


21.3% 


12.5% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


240 


29 


64 


65 


20 


5 


423 


121.9 


76.0 






56.7% 


6.9% 


15.1% 


15.4% 


4.7% 


1.2% 


100.0% 






District 28 






















Buncombe 


Fel 


603 


177 


282 


421 


82 


1 


1,566 


148.2 


121.0 






38.5% 


11.3% 


18.0% 


26.9% 


5.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


341 


59 


65 


76 


7 





548 


93.1 


71.0 






62.2% 


10.8% 


11.9% 


13.9% 


1.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 29 






















Henderson 


Fel 


107 


29 


68 


185 


66 


1 


456 


219.7 


196.0 




Mis 


190 


22 


33 


65 


30 


2 


342 


145.6 


89.0 


McDowell 


Fel 


45 


17 


77 


200 


70 





409 


255.7 


240.0 




Mis 


59 


23 


49 


77 


29 


4 


241 


195.4 


168.0 


Polk 


Fel 


11 


6 


16 


34 


8 


4 


79 


256.0 


202.0 




Mis 


21 


17 


9 


15 


6 





68 


161.0 


113.0 


Rutherford 


Fel 


120 


92 


85 


188 


124 


19 


628 


244.4 


189.5 




Mis 


183 


84 


203 


285 


82 


15 


852 


203.2 


166.5 


Transylvania 


Fel 


46 


8 


21 


60 


70 


8 


213 


284.3 


243.0 




Mis 


40 


10 


10 


29 


11 


3 


103 


183.0 


129.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


329 


152 


267 


667 


338 


32 


1,785 


246.0 


216.0 






18.4% 


8.5% 


15.0% 


37.4% 


18.9% 


1.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


493 


156 


304 


471 


158 


24 


1,606 


186.6 


152.0 






30.7% 


9.7% 


18.9% 


29.3% 


9.8% 


1.5% 


100.0% 







178 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 











Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 30A 






















Cherokee 


Fel 


90 


18 


21 


24 


48 


2 


208 


226.3 


118.0 




Mis 


28 


9 


14 


29 


22 


1 


103 


242.6 


183.0 


Clay 


Fel 


8 


1 


14 


7 


1 





31 


149.5 


156.0 




Mis 


8 


10 


3 


4 


2 





27 


145.4 


104.0 


Graham 


Fel 


IS 


1 


57 


17 


6 


1 


100 


190.4 


157.0 




Mis 


28 


8 


2X 


16 


2 





82 


137.1 


146.0 


Macon 


Fel 


76 


15 


84 


71 


4 


1 


251 


149.8 


153.0 




Mis 


45 


12 


9 


23 


1 


1 


91 


124.6 


91.0 


Swain 


Fel 


30 


1 


10 


13 


19 


2 


75 


216.6 


170.0 




Mis 


20 


2 


10 


6 


3 





41 


127.5 


103.0 


District Totals 


Fel 


222 


36 


186 


137 


78 


6 


665 


187.4 


153.0 






33.4% 


5.4% 


28.0% 


20.6% 


11.7% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


129 


41 


64 


78 


30 


2 


344 


164.9 


133.0 






37.5% 


11.9% 


18.6% 


22.7% 


8.7% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






District 30B 






















Haywood 


Fel 


309 


48 


64 


64 


87 


7 


579 


159.9 


83.0 




Mis 


168 


42 


58 


61 


41 


1 


371 


152.8 


98.0 


Jackson 


Fel 


119 


35 


58 


58 


27 


45 


342 


255.8 


146.0 




Mis 


39 


21 


13 


19 


4 





96 


126.4 


113.5 


District Totals 


Fel 


428 


83 


122 


122 


114 


52 


921 


195.5 


113.0 






46.5% 


9.0% 


13.2% 


13.2% 


12.4% 


5.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


207 


63 


71 


80 


45 


1 


467 


147.4 


104.0 






44.3% 


13.5% 


15.2% 


17.1% 


9.6% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


Fel 


33,447 


8,363 


10,985 


11,733 


4,615 


670 


69,813 


140.5 


96.0 






47.9% 


12.0% 


15.7% 


16.8% 


6.6% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


21,306 


4,423 


5,682 


6,111 


1,944 


293 


39,759 


124.9 


83.0 


- 




53.6% 


11.1% 


14.3% 


15.4% 


4.9% 


0.7% 


100.0% 







179 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES DISPOSED 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



osecuton 


al 






Ages of Disposed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


1 


Fel 


411 


110 


206 


295 


167 


3 


1,192 


186.3 


133.5 




% of Total 


34.5% 


9.2% 


17.3% 


24.7% 


14.0% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


713 


216 


244 


272 


77 


4 


1,526 


129.6 


101.0 




% of Total 


46.7% 


14.2% 


16.0% 


17.8% 


5.0% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






: 


Fel 


430 


146 


150 


164 


29 


1 


920 


122.7 


94.0 




% of Total 


46.7% 


15.9% 


16.3% 


17.8% 


3.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


470 


117 


92 


99 


26 


3 


807 


108.2 


77.0 




% of Total 


58.2% 


14.5% 


11.4% 


12.3% 


3.2% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






3A 


Fel 


570 


260 


254 


261 


89 


92 


1,526 


187.0 


109.0 




% of Total 


37.4% 


17.0% 


16.6% 


17.1% 


5.8% 


6.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


644 


199 


132 


97 


27 


6 


1,105 


96.6 


72.0 




% of Total 


58.3% 


18.0% 


11.9% 


8.8% 


2.4% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






3B 


Fel 


829 


106 


136 


182 


38 


19 


1,310 


114.6 


70.0 




% of Total 


63.3% 


8.1% 


10.4% 


13.9% 


2.9% 


1.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


725 


70 


82 


76 


17 


3 


973 


75.6 


48.0 




% of Total 


,74.5% 


7.2% 


8.4% 


7.8% 


1.7% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






4 


Fel 


1,824 


307 


278 


167 


26 


5 


2,607 


76.1 


50.0 




% of Total 


70.0% 


11.8% 


10.7% 


6.4% 


1.0% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


398 


70 


65 


61 


1 





595 


77.0 


52.0 




% of Total 


66.9% 


11.8% 


10.9% 


10.3% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






5 


Fel 


1,403 


253 


318 


209 


37 


2 


2,222 


93.4 


70.0 




% of Total 


63.1% 


11.4% 


14.3% 


9.4% 


1.7% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


876 


142 


146 


94 


18 


4 


1,280 


80.3 


59.0 




% of Total 


68.4% 


11.1% 


11.4% 


7.3% 


1.4% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






6A 


Fel 


226 


68 


53 


44 


55 


4 


450 


147.5 


90.0 




% of Total 


50.2% 


15.1% 


11.8% 


9.8% 


12.2% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


111 


19 


26 


50 


23 





229 


147.7 


94.0 




% of Total 


48.5% 


8.3% 


11.4% 


21.8% 


10.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






6B 


Fel 


415 


56 


63 


125 


63 


1 


723 


131.4 


64.0 




% of Total 


57.4% 


7.7% 


8.7% 


17.3% 


8.7% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


109 


16 


29 


40 


22 





216 


143.5 


87.5 




% of Total 


50.5% 


7.4% 


13.4% 


18.5% 


10.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






7 


Fel 


1,731 


328 


381 


355 


226 


27 


3,048 


126.7 


76.0 




% of Total 


56.8% 


10.8% 


12.5% 


11.6% 


7.4% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,043 


141 


184 


179 


119 


2 


1,668 


117.3 


74.0 




% of Total 


62.5% 


8.5% 


11.0% 


10.7% 


7.1% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






8 


Fel 


690 


194 


226 


322 


74 


5 


1,511 


132.4 


98.0 




% of Total 


45.7% 


12.8% 


15.0% 


21.3% 


4.9% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


749 


185 


285 


364 


56 


4 


1,643 


127.6 


102.0 




% of Total 


45.6% 


11.3% 


17.3% 


22.2% 


3.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts are not coterminous with superior court districts. (See the district maps in Part II.) 



180 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES DISPOSED 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



'rosecutor 
District 


al 






Ages of Disposed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


9 


Fel 


1,165 


290 


345 


293 


126 


13 


2,234 


130.4 


87.0 




% of Total 


52.1% 


13.0% 


15.4% 


13.1% 


5.6% 


0.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


869 


234 


280 


276 


83 


25 


1,767 


135.8 


91.0 




% of Total 


49.2% 


13.2% 


15.8% 


15.6% 


4.7% 


1.4% 


100.0% 






10 


Fel 


2,819 


496 


456 


427 


118 


49 


4,365 


106.2 


68.0 




% of Total 


64.6% 


11.4% 


10.4% 


9.8% 


2.7% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


2,354 


137 


115 


87 


27 


1 


2,721 


59.2 


41.0 




% of Total 


86.5% 


5.0% 


4.2% 


3.2% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






11 


Fel 


886 


252 


244 


184 


53 


19 


1,638 


118.3 


85.0 




% of Total 


54.1% 


15.4% 


14.9% 


11.2% 


3.2% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


497 


77 


85 


80 


26 


11 


776 


109.3 


64.5 




% of Total 


64.0% 


9.9% 


11.0% 


10.3% 


3.4% 


1.4% 


100.0% 






12 


Fel 


1,069 


240 


288 


320 


84 


13 


2,014 


120.9 


83.0 




% of Total 


53.1% 


11.9% 


14.3% 


15.9% 


4.2% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


312 


34 


48 


53 


30 


2 


479 


106.5 


55.0 




% of Total 


65.1% 


7.1% 


10.0% 


11.1% 


6.3% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






13 


Fel 


363 


96 


156 


262 


89 


15 


981 


184.3 


132.0 




% of Total 


37.0% 


9.8% 


15.9% 


26.7% 


9.1% 


1.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


249 


98 


115 


160 


49 


3 


674 


154.1 


119.0 




% of Total 


36.9% 


14.5% 


17.1% 


23.7% 


7.3% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






14 


Fel 


621 


121 


178 


373 


403 


70 


1,766 


246.7 


167.0 




% of Total 


35.2% 


6.9% 


10.1% 


21.1% 


22.8% 


4.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


227 


44 


51 


76 


39 


28 


465 


216.1 


94.0 




% of Total 


48.8% 


9.5% 


11.0% 


16.3% 


8.4% 


6.0% 


100.0% 






ISA 


Fel 


978 


411 


289 


150 


19 





1,847 


94.7 


86.0 




% of Total 


53.0% 


22.3% 


15.6% 


8.1% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


468 


106 


61 


47 


2 





684 


74.1 


62.0 




% of Total 


68.4% 


15.5% 


8.9% 


6.9% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






15B 


Fel 


331 


129 


145 


166 


4S 


1 


820 


141.8 


109.0 




% of Total 


40.4% 


15.7% 


17.7% 


20.2% 


5.9% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


142 


25 


33 


24 


7 





231 


103.0 


74.0 




% of Total 


61.5% 


10.8% 


14.3% 


10.4% 


3.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






16A 


Fel 


388 


126 


67 


145 


27 


4 


757 


119.4 


89.0 




% of Total 


51.3% 


16.6% 


8.9% 


19.2% 


3.6% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


87 


24 


32 


50 


12 





205 


148.0 


112.0 




% of Total 


42.4% 


11.7% 


15.6% 


24.4% 


5.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






16B 


Fel 


1,056 


408 


604 


541 


124 


16 


2,749 


142.1 


113.0 




% of Total 


38.4% 


14.8% 


22.0% 


19.7% 


4.5% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


467 


89 


129 


134 


71 


9 


899 


139.9 


85.0 




% of Total 


51.9% 


9.9% 


14.3% 


14.9% 


7.9% 


1.0% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts are not coterminous with superior court districts. (See the district maps in Part II.) 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES DISPOSED 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 



osecutor 


al 






Ages of Disposed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


17A 


Fel 


405 


147 


230 


291 


314 


24 


1,411 


225.1 


152.0 




% of Total 


28.7% 


10.4% 


16.3% 


20.6% 


22.3% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


475 


166 


293 


230 


55 





1,219 


137.2 


116.0 




% of Total 


39.0% 


13.6% 


24.0% 


18.9% 


4.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






17B 


Fel 


732 


154 


158 


139 


18 


2 


1,203 


97.4 


68.0 




% of Total 


60.8% 


12.8% 


13.1% 


11.6% 


1.5% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


571 


139 


139 


88 


9 





946 


93.2 


78.0 




% of Total 


60.4% 


14.7% 


14.7% 


9.3% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






18 


Fel 


2,322 


534 


568 


598 


353 


17 


4,392 


133.9 


84.0 




% of Total 


52.9% 


12.2% 


12.9% 


13.6% 


8.0% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


340 


59 


63 


75 


69 


2 


608 


133.2 


79.5 




% of Total 


55.9% 


9.7% 


10.4% 


12.3% 


11.3% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






19A 


Fel 


854 


289 


432 


381 


50 


2 


2,008 


124.8 


106.5 




% of Total 


42.5% 


14.4% 


21.5% 


19.0% 


2.5% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


408 


182 


270 


214 


63 


3 


1,140 


143.4 


117.0 




% of Total 


35.8% 


16.0% 


23.7% 


18.8% 


5.5% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






19B 


Fel 


362 


193 


278 


419 


132 


28 


1,412 


195.5 


154.0 




% of Total 


25.6% 


13.7% 


19.7% 


29.7% 


9.3% 


2.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


344 


136 


167 


173 


67 


14 


901 


162.9 


113.0 




% of Total 


38.2% 


15.1% 


18.5% 


19.2% 


7.4% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






20 


Fel 


1,699 


380 


541 


333 


127 


40 


3,120 


119.4 


82.0 




% of Total 


54.5% 


12.2% 


17.3% 


10.7% 


4.1% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,435 


251 


314 


206 


76 


26 


2,308 


107.3 


66.0 




% of Total 


62.2% 


10.9% 


13.6% 


8.9% 


3.3% 


1.1% 


100.0% 






21 


Fel 


1,328 


405 


820 


585 


195 


1 


3,334 


136.6 


116.0 




% of Total 


39.8% 


12.1% 


24.6% 


17.5% 


5.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,364 


245 


253 


308 


140 


38 


2,348 


127.9 


74.0 




% of Total 


58.1% 


10.4% 


10.8% 


13.1% 


6.0% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






22 


Fel 


951 


255 


370 


286 


73 


11 


1,946 


129.4 


93.0 




% of Total 


48.9% 


13.1% 


19.0% 


14.7% 


3.8% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,044 


153 


217 


200 


49 


7 


1,670 


102.8 


67.0 




% of Total 


62.5% 


9.2% 


13.0% 


12.0% 


2.9% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






23 


Fel 


199 


95 


196 


91 


38 


5 


624 


150.6 


133.0 




% of Total 


31.9% 


15.2% 


31.4% 


14.6% 


6.1% 


0.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


235 


84 


123 


131 


42 


11 


626 


164.5 


119.0 




% of Total 


37.5% 


13.4% 


19.6% 


20.9% 


6.7% 


1.8% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts are not coterminous with superior court districts. (See the district maps in Part II.) 



182 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) CASES DISPOSED 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



*rosecutorial 
District 






Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 


0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


24 


Fel 


215 


18 


95 


152 


75 


5 


560 


191.4 


154.0 




% of Total 


38.4% 


3.2% 


17.0% 


27.1% 


13.4% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


110 


32 


33 


77 


26 


2 


280 


169.6 


118.0 




% of Total 


39.3% 


11.4% 


11.8% 


27.5% 


9.3% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






25 


Fel 


552 


206 


410 


925 


304 


38 


2,435 


215.0 


183.0 




% of Total 


22.7% 


8.5% 


16.8% 


38.0% 


12.5% 


1.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


863 


185 


559 


787 


155 


26 


2,575 


169.6 


143.0 




% of Total 


33.5% 


7.2% 


21.7% 


30.6% 


6.0% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






26 


Fel 


2,632 


487 


635 


538 


90 


24 


4,406 


101.7 


71.0 




% of Total 


59.7% 


11.1% 


14.4% 


12.2% 


2.0% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


975 


323 


320 


340 


119 


16 


2,093 


138.4 


99.0 




% of Total 


46.6% 


15.4% 


15.3% 


16.2% 


5.7% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






27A 


Fel 


908 


200 


371 


390 


179 


14 


2,062 


150.0 


112.0 




% of Total 


44.0% 


9.7% 


18.0% 


18.9% 


8.7% 


0.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


222 


77 


129 


193 


82 


11 


714 


194.0 


148.0 




% of Total 


31.1% 


10.8% 


18.1% 


27.0% 


11.5% 


1.5% 


100.0% 






27B 


Fel 


501 


155 


187 


273 


160 


7 


1,283 


171.4 


117.0 




% of Total 


39.0% 


12.1% 


14.6% 


21.3% 


12.5% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


240 


29 


64 


65 


20 


5 


423 


121.9 


76.0 




% of Total 


56.7% 


6.9% 


15.1% 


15.4% 


4.7% 


1.2% 


100.0% 

1 






28 


Fel 


603 


177 


282 


421 


82 


1 


1,566 


148.2 


121.0 




% of Total 


38.5% 


11.3% 


18.0% 


26.9% 


5.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


341 


59 


65 


76 


7 





548 


93.1 


71.0 




% of Total 


62.2% 


10.8% 


11.9% 


13.9% 


1.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






29 


Fel 


329 


152 


267 


667 


338 


32 


1,785 


246.0 


216.0 




% of Total 


18.4% 


8.5% 


15.0% 


37.4% 


18.9% 


1.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


493 


156 


304 


471 


158 


24 


1,606 


186.6 


152.0 




% of Total 


30.7% 


9.7% 


18.9% 


29.3% 


9.8% 


1.5% 


100.0% 






30 


Fel 


650 


119 


308 


259 


192 


58 


1,586 


192.1 


128.0 




% of Total 


41.0% 


7.5% 


19.4% 


16.3% 


12.1% 


3.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


336 


104 


135 


158 


75 


3 


811 


154.8 


113.0 




% of Total 


41.4% 


12.8% 


16.6% 


19.5% 


9.2% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






State Totals Fel 


33,447 


8,363 


10,985 


11,733 


4,615 


670 


69,813 


140.5 


96.0 




% of Total 


47.9% 


12.0% 


15.7% 


16.8% 


6.6% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


21,306 


4,423 


5,682 


6,111 


1,944 


293 


39,759 


124.9 


83.0 




% of Total 


53.6% 


11.1% 


14.3% 


15.4% 


4.9% 


0.7% 


100.0% 







This table is provided because prosecutorial districts are not coterminous with superior court districts. (See the district maps in Part II.) 



183 



PART IV, Section 2 



District Court Division 



Caseflow Data 



THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow in 1990-91 of cases filed 
and disposed of in the State's district courts. 

Data are given on four major case classifications in the 
district court division: civil cases, juvenile proceedings, 
criminal cases, and infractions. Civil cases are divided 
into "small claims" cases assigned to magistrates; domes- 
tic relations cases (chiefly concerned with annulments, 
divorces, alimony, custody and support of children); and 
"general civil" cases. Juvenile proceedings are classified 
according to the nature of the offense or condition 
alleged in the petition that initiates the case. District 
court criminal cases are divided into motor vehicle cases 
(where the offense charged is defined in Chapter 20 of 
the North Carolina General Statutes) and non-motor 
vehicle criminal cases. 

Infractions are non-criminal violations of law punish- 
able by a fine not to exceed $100 and not punishable by 
imprisonment. This category of cases in the district 
courts was created effective September 1, 1986, when the 
General Assembly decriminalized most minor traffic 
offenses. Prior to September 1, 1986, "infractions" were 
prosecuted as criminal motor vehicle cases. Therefore, 
for purposes of comparing present to past district court 
criminal caseloads, criminal motor vehicle caseloads of 
1985-86 and earlier are substantially comparable to the 
combined motor vehicle and infraction caseloads of 
1986-87 and later. (This comparison is not exact, since 
not all cases now prosecuted as infractions were criminal 
motor vehicle cases in prior years. For example, the 
infraction of purchase or possession of alcohol by a 
person age 19 or 20 was neither an infraction nor a 
criminal violation prior to September 1, 1986.) 

Magistrates may handle civil, criminal, and infraction 
cases in district court. When the plaintiff in a civil case 
requests, and the amount in controversy does not exceed 
$2,000, the case may be classified as a "small claim" civil 
action and assigned to a magistrate for hearing. In 
misdemeanor or infraction cases involving alcohol, 
traffic, hunting, fishing, and boating violations, magis- 
trates may accept written appearances, waivers of trial or 
hearing, and pleas of guilty or admissions of responsi- 
bility, and enter judgment in accord with the schedule of 
fines and penalties promulgated by the Conference of 
Chief District Court Judges. Also, magistrates may 
accept guilty pleas in other misdemeanor cases where the 
sentence cannot be in excess of 30 days or a $50 fine and 
may hear and enter judgment in worthless check cases 
where the amount involved is $1,000 or less, and any 
prison sentence imposed does not exceed 30 days. 

Appeals from magistrates' judgments in civil, criminal, 
and infraction cases are to the district court, with a 
district court judge presiding. 

The bar graphs that follow illustrate that district court 
criminal and infraction cases filed and disposed of in the 
1990-91 year greatly outnumbered civil cases. Motor 
vehicle criminal cases and infractions accounted for 
slightly over fifty percent of total filings and dispositions, 



and the non-motor vehicle criminal cases accounted for 
about twenty-seven percent of filings and dispositions. 
As in past years, the greatest portion of district court 
civil filings and dispositions were small claims referred to 
magistrates. 

The large volume categories of infraction, criminal 
motor-vehicle, and civil magistrate cases are not reported 
to the AOC by individual case file numbers. Therefore, it 
is not possible to obtain, by computer processing, the 
numbers of pending cases as of a given date or the ages 
of cases pending and ages of cases at disposition. These 
categories of cases are processed through the courts 
faster than any others, thus explaining the decision not 
to allocate personnel and computer resources to report- 
ing these cases in the detail that is provided for other 
categories of cases. 

Also, juvenile proceedings and hearings on commit- 
ment or recommitment of persons to the State's mental 
health hospital facilities are not reported to AOC by 
individual case file numbers. 

Two tables are provided on juvenile proceedings: 
offenses and conditions alleged, and numbers of adjudi- 
catory hearings held. 

Data on district court hearings for mental health 
hospital commitments and recommitments are reported 
in Part III, "Cost and Case Data on Representation of 
Indigents." 

The ages of district court cases pending on June 30, 
1991, and the ages of cases disposed of during 1990-91 
are reported for the domestic relations, general civil and 
magistrate appeal/ transfer, and criminal non-motor 
vehicle case categories. 

The median age of domestic relations cases pending 
on June 30, 1991, was 209 days, compared with a median 
age of 206 days for domestic relations cases pending on 
June 30, 1990. For general civil and magistrate appeal/ 
transfer cases, the median age of cases pending on June 
30, 1991, was 193 days, compared with 177 days on June 
30, 1990. At the time of disposition during 1990-91, the 
median age of domestic relations cases was 48 days, and 
the median age for general civil and magistrate appeal/ 
transfer cases was 108 days, compared with a median age 
of 50 days at the time of disposition for domestic rela- 
tions cases and 104 days for general civil and magistrate 
appeal/ transfer cases during 1989-90. 

For district court non-motor vehicle criminal cases, 
the median age for cases pending on June 30, 1991, was 
65 days, the same as the median age for such cases 
pending on June 30, 1990. The median age of non-motor 
vehicle criminal cases at the time of disposition during 
1990-91 was 34 days, compared with 33 days for these 
cases at the time of disposition during 1989-90. 

The statewide total district court filings during 1990- 
91, not including juvenile cases and mental health 
hospital commitment hearings, was 2,253,348 cases, 
compared with 2,270,456 during 1989-90, a decrease of 
17,108 filings (0.8%). Fiscal year 1990-91 was the first 
year since 1981-82 in which there was a decrease in total 



187 



The District Court Division, Continued 



district court filings. The small decrease in total filings 
during 1990-91 is accounted for by decreases in criminal 
motor vehicle, infraction, and civil magistrate filings. 
There were 1.145.702 criminal motor vehicle and infrac- 
tion cases filed during 1990-91. compared with 1,166,325 
during 1989-90. a decrease of 20,623 cases (1.8%). Filings 
of civil magistrate cases decreased by 4.6%, from 292,572 
cases in 1989-90 to 279,209 cases in 1990-91. There was 
also a small decrease (of 466 cases, or 0.7%) in filings of 
general civil cases, from 63,175 in 1989-90 to 62,709 in 
1990-91. 



During 1990-91, there were increases in filings of 
criminal non-motor vehicle, civil license revocation, and 
domestic relations cases. Filings of civil license revoca- 
tion cases increased by 3.2%, from 67,916 cases in 1989- 
90 to 70,111 in 1990-91. Filings of criminal non-motor 
vehicle cases increased by 6,958 cases (1.2%), from 
603,328 cases in 1989-90 to 610,286 in 1990-91. Filings of 
domestic relations cases increased by 8,191 cases (10.6%), 
from 77,140 in 1989-90 to 85,331 in 1990-91. 









; 






188 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30. 1991 



651.728 



660,847 



610,286 6 Q5,286 



279,209 278,385 




N/A 




Domestic 
Relations 



General 
Civil 



Civil 
Magistrate 



Civil 

License 

Revocation 



Infraction 



Criminal 
Motor 
Vehicle 



Criminal 

Non-Motor 

Vehicle 



Q Filings 



Dispositions 



ie 70,111 civil license revocations are automatic, 10-day 
iver license suspensions imposed on drivers arrested on 
spicion of impaired driving whose breath tests show a 
ood alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more. They are 
iunted only at filing. Criminal motor vehicle and infraction 
ses (almost all of which are traffic-related) made up 50.8% 
district court filings and 52.7% of dispositions during 



1990-91. The civil case categories together (domestic, 
general civil, which includes appealed civil magistrate cases, 
civil magistrate, and civil license revocation) accounted for 
22.1% of total filings (497,360 of 2,253,348). Criminal non- 
motor vehicle case filings accounted for 27.1% of total 
filings. 



189 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



1981-82 — 1990-91 




2,500,000 



2,000,000 



1,500,000 



Number 

of 

Cases 



1 ,000,000 



500,000 



81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 



In fiscal year 1990-91, total filings in the district courts 
decreased for the first time since 1981-82. The decrease 
in total filings was relatively small, 0.8%, from 2,270,456 
in 1989-90 to 2,253,348 in 1990-91. Total filings on this 
graph include all civil, infraction, and criminal cases. 
Total dispositions (which do not include civil license 



revocation cases, as these are counted only at filing) have 
increased every year since 1982-83, reaching 2,175,869 
dispositions during 1990-91, an increase of 1.4% from 
1989-90. During 1990-91, 0.3% more cases were filed 
than were disposed (including all civil, infraction, and 
criminal cases). 



190 



TRENDS IN FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1981-82 - 1990-91 







Filings 








/• — • 


^=i 






yS / 








yS ^s Dispositions 








y< y 








jit / 




All Cases 


j**""\^- 


"V-r" 




f ""^ s ^^ X^ 


^ •*"" 


Filings 




^■^•^—r-^^ 












/* 


^~"—-« 


Civil Magistrate Cases 




^^>*^ Dispositions 












Domestic and General Civil Cases 




Filings 


r-^=* 


• — =•=■»-_ _ ^___^ ___ -»— — r^r" 


t^8 — — 


— — • — 

Dispositions 



450.000 



300,000 



Number 

of 

Cases 



150,000 



81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 



Civil magistrate (often known as small claims) case 
filings decreased for the second consecutive year; filings 
of civil magistrate cases decreased by 5.0% in 1989-90 
and 4.6% in 1990-91. Civil magistrate dispositions also 
decreased during 1990-91, by 5.0%. Filings and disposi- 



tions of domestic relations and general civil cases in- 
creased from 1989-90 to 1990-91. Filings of these cases 
increased by 5.5%, from 140,315 in 1989-90 to 148,040 in 
1990-91; dispositions increased by 8.9%, from 132,740 in 
1989-90 to 144,539 in 1990-91. 



191 



CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



I 
; 



85,331 



81,195 



62,709 63344 



40,296 



39,661 



34,927 



39,063 



General Civil and Civil 

Magistrate 

Appe als/Tr an s f ers 

\M Begin Pending I Filings 



Domestic Relations 



\—\ Dispositions ™ End Pending 



During 1990-91, more general civil and civil magistrate 
appeal transfer cases were disposed than were filed. As a 
result, there were fewer cases pending at the end of the 
year than were pending at the beginning (635 fewer cases, 



a 1.6% decrease). Filings of domestic relations cases 
exceeded dispositions, resulting in an increase of 4,136 
cases (1 1.8%) in the number of pending cases. 



192 



CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES FILED 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 



58,308 




URESA 



IV-D Child 
Support 



Non IV-D Child 
Support 



2.4% 



Domestic Relations 
15.4% 8.8% 



Other 



31.0% 



General Civil 



39.4% 



Magistrate 
Appeals/Transfers 

3.0% 



"URESA" stands for the Uniform Reciprocal Enforce- 
ment of Support Act, and refers to actions enforcing 
child support orders entered by judges in one state or 
county by the courts in another. "IV-D Child Support" 
refers to cases initiated by counties or the Department of 
Human Resources to collect child support owed to social 
services clients. "Non IV-D Child Support" actions are 
initiated by custodial parents themselves. The "Other" 
category includes actions such as annulments and divor- 
ces in which child support is not an issue. "General Civil" 
refers to other civil cases in district court (contracts, 



collections, negligence, etc.). "Magistrate Appeals/ 
Transfers" are appeals and transfers from small claims 
court. The domestic relations categories combined repre- 
sent 57.6% of the total civil non-magistrate cases (85,331 
of 148,040). In 1990-91, compared to 1989-90, there were 
decreases in filings of non IV-D cases (4.8%), general 
civil cases (0.7%), and magistrate appeals/ transfers 
(1.1%). Filings of URESA cases increased by 16.6%, 
filings of IV-D cases increased by 20.0%, and filings of 
"Other" domestic cases increased by 1 1.0%. 



193 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 

CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Domestic Relations General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 





Begin 










End 


Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/90 


Filings 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


7/1/90 


Filings 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


District 1 


























Camden 


\b 


33 


49 


24 


49.0% 


25 


15 


8 


23 


14 


60.9% 


9 


Chowan 


69 


187 


256 


198 


77.3% 


58 


30 


63 


93 


54 


58.1% 


39 


Currituck 


65 


97 


162 


88 


54.3% 


74 


101 


90 


191 


89 


46.6% 


102 


Dare 


111 


259 


370 


244 


65.9% 


126 


222 


361 


583 


294 


50.4% 


289 


Gates 


29 


85 


114 


77 


67.5% 


37 


8 


21 


29 


13 


44.8% 


16 


Pasquotank 


156 


386 


542 


298 


55.0% 


244 


125 


137 


262 


149 


56.9% 


113 


Perquimans 


81 


125 


206 


87 


42.2% 


119 


29 


35 


64 


32 


50.0% 


32 


District Totals 


527 


1,172 


1,699 


1,016 


59.8% 


683 


530 


715 


1,245 


645 


51.8% 


600 


District 2 


























Beaufort 


250 


698 


948 


628 


66.2% 


320 


178 


188 


366 


174 


47.5% 


192 


Hyde 


34 


40 


74 


60 


81.1% 


14 


23 


30 


53 


29 


54.7% 


24 


Martin 


164 


326 


490 


291 


59.4% 


199 


52 


76 


128 


83 


64.8% 


45 


Tyrrell 


13 


48 


61 


46 


75.4% 


15 


15 


20 


35 


21 


60.0% 


14 


Washington 


54 


204 


258 


199 


77.1% 


59 


35 


117 


152 


73 


48.0% 


79 


District Totals 


515 


1,316 


1,831 


1,224 


66.8% 


607 


303 


431 


734 


380 


51.8% 


354 


District 3 


























Carteret 


245 


551 


796 


619 


77.8% 


177 


120 


327 


447 


338 


75.6% 


109 


Craven 


326 


985 


1,311 


973 


74.2% 


338 


217 


642 


859 


657 


76.5% 


202 


Pamlico 


37 


116 


153 


122 


79.7% 


31 


16 


58 


74 


52 


70.3% 


22 


Pitt 


275 


1,143 


1,418 


1,155 


81.5% 


263 


315 


835 


1,150 


849 


73.8% 


301 


District Totals 


883 


2,795 


3,678 


2,869 


78.0% 


809 


668 


1,862 


2,530 


1,896 


74.9% 


634 


District 4 


























Duplin 


175 


496 


671 


487 


72.6% 


184 


131 


161 


292 


177 


60.6% 


115 


Jones 


50 


144 


194 


137 


70.6% 


57 


24 


40 


64 


40 


62.5% 


24 


Onslow 


1,219 


2,084 


3,303 


1,833 


55.5% 


1,470 


867 


894 


1,761 


739 


42.0% 


1,022 


Sampson 


135 


594 


729 


554 


76.0% 


175 


113 


309 


422 


310 


73.5% 


112 


District Totals 


1,579 


3,318 


4,897 


3,011 


61.5% 


1,886 


1,135 


1,404 


2,539 


1,266 


49.9% 


1,273 


District 5 


























New Hanover 


605 


1,809 


2,414 


1,767 


73.2% 


647 


1,081 


1,784 


2,865 


1,806 


63.0% 


1,059 


Pender 


110 


361 


471 


331 


70.3% 


140 


104 


179 


283 


165 


58.3% 


118 


District Totals 


715 


2,170 


2,885 


2,098 


72.7% 


787 


1,185 


1,963 


3,148 


1,971 


62.6% 


1,177 


District 6A 


























Halifax 


252 


1,066 


1,318 


1,068 


81.0% 


250 


97 


202 


299 


227 


75.9% 


72 


District 6B 


























Bertie 


104 


358 


462 


347 


75.1% 


115 


57 


53 


110 


82 


74.5% 


28 


Hertford 


145 


399 


544 


412 


75.7% 


132 


48 


110 


158 


98 


62.0% 


60 


Northampton 


91 


305 


396 


277 


69.9% 


119 


46 


61 


107 


58 


54.2% 


49 


District Totals 


340 


1,062 


1,402 


1,036 


73.9% 


366 
194 


151 


224 


375 


238 


63.5% 


137 



strict 7 

Igecombe 

ish 

ilson 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 

General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 



Domestic Relations 



Begin End Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/90 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/91 7/1/90 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/91 



216 890 1,106 847 76.6% 259 

396 1,124 1,520 1,125 74.0% 395 

173 1,066 1,239 1,017 82.1% 222 



146 301 447 326 

352 637 989 649 

257 439 696 443 



72.9% 


121 


65.6% 


340 


63.6% 


253 



)istrict Totals 



785 3,080 3,865 2,989 



77.3% 



876 



755 



1,377 2,132 l,41f 



66.5% 



714 



strict 8 

eene 
:noir 
ayne 



42 160 202 169 

213 659 872 691 

560 1,742 2,302 1,552 



83.7% 


33 


79.2% 


181 


67.4% 


750 



29 54 83 52 

226 420 646 465 

752 1,028 1,780 1,119 



62.7% 


31 


72.0% 


181 


62.9% 


661 



)istrict Totals 



815 2,561 3,376 2,412 



71.4% 



964 



1,007 1,502 2,509 1,636 



65.2% 



873 



strict 9 

anklin 

anville 

rson 

ince 

arren 



135 
132 

97 
176 

81 



457 
426 
312 
535 
229 



592 425 

558 412 

409 328 

711 522 

310 237 



71.8% 
73.8% 
80.2% 
73.4% 
76.5% 



167 
146 

81 
189 

73 



95 
82 
55 
189 
51 



219 
139 
147 
265 
64 



314 
221 
202 
454 
115 



157 
139 
127 
286 
83 



50.0% 
62.9% 
62.9% 
63.0% 
72.2% 



157 
82 

75 

168 

32 



)istrict Totals 



621 



1,959 2,580 1,924 



74.6% 



656 



472 



834 1,306 



792 



60.6% 



514 



strict 10 

ake 

strict 11 

irnett 
hnston 

:e 



4,290 4,513 8,803 3,034 



246 838 1,084 818 
317 1,175 1,492 1,236 
213 736 949 698 



34.5% 


5,769 


75.5% 


266 


82.8% 


256 


73.6% 


251 



6,095 7,208 13,303 5,940 



358 607 965 643 
390 681 1,071 807 
380 758 1,138 876 



44.7% 


7,363 


66.6% 


322 


75.4% 


264 


77.0% 


262 



)istrict Totals 



776 2,749 3,525 2,752 



78.1% 



773 



1,128 2,046 3,174 2,326 



73.3% 



848 



istrict 12 

imberland 

Istrict 13 

aden 

■unswick 

jlumbus 



2,283 4,949 7,232 4,657 



73 356 429 346 
338 594 932 568 
362 654 1,016 694 



64.4% 


2,575 


80.7% 


83 


60.9% 


364 


68.3% 


322 



726 1,798 2.524 1,922 



166 370 536 372 
372 412 784 496 
339 358 697 443 



76.1% 602 



69.4% 164 

63.3% 288 
63.6% 254 



district Totals 



773 1,604 2,377 1,608 



67.6% 



769 



877 1,140 2,017 1,311 



65.0% 706 



Istrict 14 

urham 



1,580 2,357 3,937 2,276 



57.8% 1,661 



1,280 1,964 3,244 1,985 



61.2% 1,259 



istrict 15A 

lamance 



410 1,312 1,722 1,245 



72.3% 



477 



589 1,122 1,711 1,141 



66.7% 570 



195 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 

CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 



Domestic Relations 



Begin End Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/90 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/91 7/1/90 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/91 



District 15B 


























Chatham 


139 


432 


571 


388 


68.0% 


183 


84 


129 


213 


145 


68.1% 


68 


Orange 


352 


794 


1,146 


690 


60.2% 


456 


433 


552 


985 


523 


53.1% 


462 


District Totals 


491 


1,226 


1,717 


1,078 


62.8% 


639 


517 


681 


1,198 


668 


55.8% 


530 


District 16A 


























Hoke 


101 


364 


465 


371 


79.8% 


94 


47 


102 


149 


111 


74.5% 


38 


Scotland 


153 


625 


778 


607 


78.0% 


171 


137 


249 


386 


255 


66.1% 


131 


District Totals 


254 


989 


1,243 


978 


78.7% 


265 


184 


351 


535 


366 


68.4% 


169 


District 16B 


























Robeson 


625 


1,615 


2,240 


1,506 


67.2% 


734 


653 


982 


1,635 


780 


47.7% 


855 


District 17A 


























Caswell 


64 


211 


275 


216 


78.5% 


59 


34 


52 


86 


56 


65.1% 


30 


Rockingham 


278 


922 


1,200 


976 


81.3% 


224 


214 


536 


750 


571 


76.1% 


179 


District Totals 


342 


1,133. 


1,475 


1,192 


80.8% 


283 


248 


588 


836 


627 


75.0% 


209 


District 17B 


























Stokes 


89 


271 


360 


258 


71.7% 


102 


80 


94 


174 


98 


56.3% 


76 


Surry 


247 


746 


993 


792 


79.8% 


201 


219 


418 


637 


478 


75.0% 


159 


District Totals 


336 


1,017 


1,353 


1,050 


77.6% 


303 


299 


512 


811 


576 


71.0% 


235 


District 18 


























Guilford 


3,258 


4,847 


8,105 


4,791 


59.1% 


3,314 


4,769 


5,668 


10,437 


5,485 


52.6% 


4,952 


District 19A 
























■ 


Cabarrus 


236 


1,198 


1,434 


1,164 


81.2% 


270 


315 


924 


1,239 


976 


78.8% 


263 


District 19B 


























Montgomery 


202 


332 


534 


311 


58.2% 


223 


211 


204 


415 


299 


72.0% 


116 


Randolph 


320 


913 


1,233 


929 


75.3% 


304 


218 


520 


738 


539 


73.0% 


199 


District Totals 


522 


1,245 


1,767 


1,240 


70.2% 


527 


429 


724 


1,153 


838 


72.7% 


315 


District 19C 


























Rowan 


315 


1,243 


1,558 


1,219 


78.2% 


339 


382 


757 


1,139 


759 


66.6% 


380 


District 20 


























Anson 


169 


292 


461 


308 


66.8% 


153 


157 


114 


271 


126 


46.5% 


145 


Moore 


270 


640 


910 


580 


63.7% 


330 


364 


409 


773 


389 


50.3% 


384 


Richmond 


291 


734 


1,025 


726 


70.8% 


299 


257 


266 


523 


288 


55.1% 


235 


Stanly 


294 


540 


834 


570 


68.3% 


264 


454 


355 


809 


596 


73.7% 


213 


Union 


289 


834 


1,123 


812 


72.3% 


311 


421 


512 


933 


472 


50.6% 


461 


District Totals 


1,313 


3,040 


4,353 


2,996 


68.8% 


1,357 


1,653 


1,656 


3,309 


1,871 


56.5% 


1,438 



196 



(istrict 21 

'orsyth 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 

General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 



Domestic Relations 



Begin End Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/90 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/91 7/1/90 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/91 



1,148 



3,265 4,413 3,155 



71.5% 1,258 



2,002 3,636 5,638 3,749 



66.5% 1,889 



(Istrict 22 

Alexander 
)avidson 
)avie 
redell 



75 
575 

82 
369 



266 

1,363 

320 

1,221 



341 
1,938 

402 
1,590 



277 
1,341 

267 
1,246 



81.2% 
69.2% 
66.4% 
78.4% 



64 

597 
135 

344 



33 

396 
100 
469 



100 
635 
134 
857 



133 
1,031 

234 
1,326 



85 
648 
107 
998 



63.9% 
62.9% 
45.7% 
75.3% 



48 
383 
127 
328 



District Totals 1,101 3,170 4,271 3,131 



73.3% 1,140 



998 



1,726 2,724 1,838 



67.5% 



886 



(istrict 23 

Jleghany 
vshe 
Vilkes 
r adkin 



34 

61 

123 

106 



118 
209 
689 
272 



152 
270 
812 
378 



118 
206 
647 
287 



77.6% 
76.3% 
79.7% 
75.9% 



34 

64 

165 

91 



20 

44 

363 

127 



54 

99 

1,011 

176 



74 

143 

1,374 

303 



55 

100 
980 
185 



74.3% 
69.9% 
71.3% 
61.1% 



19 

43 
394 

118 



District Totals 



324 1,288 1,612 1,258 



78.0% 



354 



554 1,340 1,894 1,320 



69.7% 



574 



(istrict 24 

kvery 

ladison 

litchell 

/atauga 

'ancey 



84 

74 

75 

121 

54 



136 
157 
128 
296 
139 



220 
231 
203 
417 
193 



111 
160 
117 
291 
143 



50.5% 
69.3% 
57.6% 
69.8% 
74.1% 



109 
71 
86 

126 
50 



71 
23 
59 
205 
20 



122 
40 
91 

273 
43 



193 

63 

150 

478 

63 



121 

39 

122 

298 

44 



62.7% 
61.9% 
81.3% 
62.3% 
69.8% 



72 
24 
28 
180 
19 



District Totals 



408 



856 1,264 



822 



65.0% 



442 



378 



569 



947 



624 



65.9% 



323 



(istrict 25 

iurke 

laldwell 

latawba 



256 
240 
539 



956 

870 

1,750 



1,212 
1,110 
2,289 



931 

855 

1,654 



76.8% 
77.0% 
72.3% 



281 
255 
635 



258 
174 
535 



741 

451 

1,019 



999 

625 

1,554 



743 

471 

1,184 



74.4% 
75.4% 
76.2% 



256 
154 
370 



District Totals 1,035 3,576 4,611 3,440 



74.6% 1,171 



967 



2,211 3,178 2,398 



75.5% 



780 



(istrict 26 

lecklenburg 



2,688 6,477 9,165 6,149 67.1% 3,016 6,347 9,122 15,469 9,737 62.9% 5,732 



(istrict 27A 

Jaston 



639 2,667 3,306 2,674 80.9% 632 529 1,132 1,661 1,341 80.7% 320 



(istrict 27B 

'leveland 
-incoln 



303 1,709 2,012 1,630 81.0% 382 193 423 616 486 78.9% 130 

128 616 744 625 84.0% 119 67 264 331 257 77.6% 74 



District Totals 



431 2,325 2,756 2,255 



81.8% 501 



260 



687 



947 



743 



78.5% 



204 



Mstrict 28 

luncombe 



932 2,335 3,267 2,248 



68.8% 1,019 



753 1,631 2,384 1,524 



63.9% 



860 



197 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Domestic Relations General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 

Begin End 

Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/90 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/91 



Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/90 Filings Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/91 



District 29 


























Henderson 


325 


785 


1,110 


766 


69.0% 


344 


297 


407 


704 


466 


66.2% 


238 


McDowell 


177 


432 


609 


423 


69.5% 


186 


86 


179 


265 


199 


75.1% 


66 


Polk 


33 


104 


137 


95 


69.3% 


42 


23 


61 


84 


47 


56.0% 


37 


Rutherford 


168 


701 


869 


645 


74.2% 


224 


118 


277 


395 


280 


70.9% 


115 


Transylvania 


102 


301 


403 


256 


63.5% 


147 


70 


132 


202 


132 


65.3% 


70 



District Totals 805 2,323 3,128 2,185 



District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 



69.9% 



943 



594 



1,056 1,650 1,124 



I9X 



68.1% 



526 



82 


190 


272 


194 


71.3% 


78 


44 


145 


189 


152 


80.4% 


37 


12 


48 


60 


47 


78.3% 


13 


25 


57 


82 


64 


78.0% 


18 


16 


79 


95 


54 


56.8% 


41 


20 


50 


70 


47 


67.1% 


23 


233 


618 


851 


561 


65.9% 


290 


200 


324 


524 


306 


58.4% 


218 


106 


251 


357 


259 


72.5% 


98 


75 


210 


285 


172 


60.4% 


113 


90 


218 


308 


214 


69.5% 


94 


82 


125 


207 


110 


53.1% 


97 


41 


109 


150 


116 


77.3% 


34 


21 


53 


74 


55 


74.3% 


19 



District Totals 580 1,513 2,093 1,445 69.0% 648 467 964 1,431 906 63.3% 525 

State Totals 34,927 85,331 120,258 81,195 67.5% 39,063 40,296 62,709 103,005 63,344 61.5% 39,661 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL 
(NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 



Judge's Final Order or 

Judgment Without Trial 

(30,900) 



Clerk (28.097) 



Voluntary Dismissal 
(23,852) 




Other (8.883) 



0.2% Trial by Jury (332) 



Trial by Judge (52,475) 



st civil cases in district court are disposed of by judges, 
er before trial or with a bench (non-jury) trial. The 
her" category here includes such actions as removal to 



federal court or an order from another state closing a 
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act case. 



199 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Judge's Final 
Order or 
Trial by Trial by Voluntary 
Jury Judge Dismissal W 



District 1 










Camden 


Gen 





3 


2 




Dom 





3 


2 


Chowan 


Gen 





13 


15 




Dom 





80 


13 


Currituck 


Gen 


I) 


8 


33 




Dom 





58 


14 


Dare 


Gen 


1 


7 


84 




Dom 





173 


26 


Gates 


Gen 


1 





2 




Dom 





20 


10 


Pasquotank 


Gen 





9 


37 




Dom 





190 


19 


Perquimans 


Gen 





6 


8 




Dom 


1 


61 


6 


District Totals 


Gen 


2 


46 


181 




% of Total 


0.3% 


7.1% 


28.1% 




Dom 


1 


585 


90 




% of Total 


0.1% 


57.6% 


8.9% 


District 2 










Beaufort 


Gen 


2 


19 


45 




Dom 





262 


16 


Hyde 


Gen 





7 


12 




Dom 





25 


8 


Martin 


Gen 


1 


23 


19 




Dom 





114 


12 


Tyrrell 


Gen 








7 




Dom 





1 





Washington 


Gen 


1 


7 


19 




Dom 





85 


5 


District Totals 


Gen 


4 


56 


102 




% of Total 


1.1% 


14.7% 


26.8% 




Dom 





487 


41 




% of Total 


0.0% 


39.8% 


3.3% 



;ment 






Total 


ut Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


2 


4 


3 


14 


19 








24 





25 


1 


54 


96 





9 


198 


22 


23 


3 


89 


16 








88 


35 


154 


13 


294 


42 


1 


2 


244 





7 


3 


13 


40 





7 


77 


8 


78 


17 


149 


84 





5 


298 


3 


13 


2 


32 


15 


1 


3 


87 


70 


304 


42 


645 


10.9% 


47.1% 


6.5% 


100.0% 


312 


2 


26 


1,016 


30.7% 


0.2% 


2.6% 


100.0% 


24 


76 


8 


174 


338 


4 


8 


628 


2 


7 


1 


29 


27 








60 


3 


33 


4 


83 


157 





8 


291 


1 


13 





21 


44 





1 


46 


1 


45 





73 


108 





1 


199 


31 


174 


13 


380 


8.2% 


45.8% 


3.4% 


100.0% 


674 


4 


18 


1,224 


55.1% 


0.3% 


1.5% 


100.0% 



♦General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



200 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 









July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 


















Judge's Final 


















Order or 












Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 3 


















Carteret 


Gen 


2 


55 


105 


40 


97 


39 


338 




Dom 





389 


26 


104 


2 


98 


619 


Craven 


Gen 


2 


47 


178 


113 


246 


71 


657 




Dom 


1 


503 


56 


234 


2 


177 


973 


Pamlico 


Gen 


1 


4 


10 


24 


12 


1 


52 




Dom 





62 


7 


43 





10 


122 


Pitt 


Gen 


2 


149 


234 


15 


314 


135 


849 




Dom 





986 


64 


1 


1 


103 


1,155 


District Totals 


Gen 


7 


255 


527 


192 


669 


246 


1,896 




% of Total 


0.4% 


13.4% 


27.8% 


10.1% 


35.3% 


13.0% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


1,940 


153 


382 


5 


388 


2,869 




% of Total 


0.0% 


67.6% 


5.3% 


13.3% 


0.2% 


13.5% 


100.0% 


District 4 


















Duplin 


Gen 


4 


37 


58 


6 


70 


2 


177 




Dom 





218 


23 


245 


1 





487 


Jones 


Gen 





5 


12 


2 


17 


4 


40 




Dom 





70 


7 


59 





1 


137 


Onslow 


Gen 


5 


136 


260 


21 


162 


155 


739 




Dom 





1,335 


115 


187 


2 


194 


1,833 


Sampson 


Gen 


1 


39 


124 


19 


120 


. 7 


310 




Dom 





289 


28 


219 


3 


15 


554 


District Totals 


Gen 


10 


217 


454 


48 


369 


168 


1,266 




% of Total 


0.8% 


17.1% 


35.9% 


3.8% 


29.1% 


13.3% 


100.0% 




Dom 





1,912 


173 


710 


6 


210 


3,011 




% of Total 


0.0% 


63.5% 


5.7% 


23.6% 


0.2% 


7.0% 


100.0% 


District 5 


















New Hanover 


Gen 


13 


209 


461 


281 


592 


250 


1,806 




Dom 


1 


913 


166 


631 


1 


55 


1,767 


Pender 


Gen 


4 


37 


60 


11 


49 


4 


165 




Dom 





155 


17 


132 


2 


25 


331 


District Totals 


Gen 


17 


246 


521 


292 


641 


254 


1,971 




% of Total 


0.9% 


12.5% 


26.4% 


14.8% 


32.5% 


12.9% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


1,068 


183 


763 


3 


80 


2,098 




% of Total 


0.0% 


50.9% 


8.7% 


36.4% 


0.1% 


3.8% 


100.0% 


District 6A 


















Halifax 


Gen 


2 


49 


65 


33 


75 


3 


227 




% of Total 


0.9% 


21.6% 


28.6% 


14.5% 


33.0% 


1.3% 


100.0% 




Dom 





310 


20 


732 





6 


1,068 




% of Total 


0.0% 


29.0% 


1.9% 


68.5% 


0.0% 


0.6% 


100.0% 



*General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



201 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON- MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Judge's Final 
Order or 







Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 6B 


















Bertie 


Gen 


1 


3 


21 


25 


28 


4 


82 




Dom 





98 


23 


216 


1 


9 


347 


Hertford 


Gen 





30 


22 


5 


31 


10 


98 




Dom 





250 


29 


84 


3 


46 


412 


Northampton 


Gen 


1 


9 


25 


6 


16 


1 


58 




Dom 





92 


17 


163 


2 


3 


277 


District Totals 


Gen 


2 


42 


68 


36 


75 


15 


238 




% of Total 


0.8% 


17.6% 


28.6% 


15.1% 


31.5% 


6.3% 


100.0% 




Dom 





440 


69 


463 


6 


58 


1,036 




% of Total 


0.0% 


42.5% 


6.7% 


44.7% 


0.6% 


5.6% 


100.0% 


District 7 


















Edgecombe 


Gen 


2 


33 


65 


39 


146 


41 


326 




Dom 





346 


90 


382 


1 


28 


847 


Nash 


Gen 


1 


77 


157 


85 


324 


5 


649 




Dom 





717 


39 


361 


1 


7 


1,125 


Wilson 


Gen 


2 


55 


122 


68 


188 


8 


443 




Dom 





556 


40 


403 


1 


17 


1,017 


District Totals 


Gen 


5 


165 


344 


192 


658 


54 


1,418 




% of Total 


0.4% 


11.6% 


24.3% 


13.5% 


46.4% 


3.8% 


100.0% 




Dom 





1,619 


169 


1,146 


3 


52 


2,989 




% of Total 


0.0% 


54.2% 


5.7% 


38.3% 


0.1% 


1.7% 


100.0% 


District 8 


















Greene 


Gen 





13 


7 


4 


20 


8 


52 




Dom 





64 


7 


85 





13 


169 


Lenoir 


Gen 


5 


36 


125 


70 


209 


20 


465 




Dom 


1 


395 


31 


229 


4 


31 


691 


Wayne 


Gen 


9 


119 


369 


50 


512 


60 


1,119 




Dom 





778 


238 


459 


3 


74 


1,552 


District Totals 


Gen 


14 


168 


501 


124 


741 


88 


1,636 




% of Total 


0.9% 


10.3% 


30.6% 


7.6% 


45.3% 


5.4% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


1,237 


276 


773 


7 


118 


2,412 




% of Total 


0.0% 


51.3% 


11.4% 


32.0% 


0.3% 


4.9% 


100.0% 



♦General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



202 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Judge's Final 
Order or 







Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 9 


















Franklin 


Gen 





13 


57 


10 


76 


1 


157 




Dom 





135 


38 


243 


7 


2 


425 


Granville 


Gen 


2 


11 


36 


26 


47 


17 


139 




Dom 





146 


28 


216 





11 


412 


Person 


Gen 





15 


44 


15 


52 


1 


127 




Dom 





191 


38 


79 


7 


13 


328 


Vance 


Gen 





45 


89 


6 


130 


16 


286 




Dom 





252 


47 


207 





16 


522 


Warren 


Gen 


1 


8 


19 


23 


28 


4 


83 




Dom 





74 


11 


143 





9 


237 


District Totals 


Gen 


3 


92 


245 


80 


333 


39 


792 




% of Total 


0.4% 


11.6% 


30.9% 


10.1% 


42.0% 


4.9% 


100.0% 




Dom 





798 


162 


888 


14 


62 


1,924 




% of Total 


0.0% 


41.5% 


8.4% 


46.2% 


0.7% 


3.2% 


100.0% 


District 10 


















Wake 


Gen 


15 


162 


1,495 


1,129 


3,039 


100 


5,940 




% of Total 


0.3% 


2.7% 


25.2% 


19.0% 


51.2% 


1.7% 


100.0% 




Dom 





1,919 


145 


799 


5 


166 


3,034 




% of Total 


0.0% 


63.2% 


4.8% 


26.3% 


0.2% 


5.5% 


100.0% 


District 11 


















Harnett 


Gen 


6 


27 


298 


158 


152 


2 


643 




Dom 


1 


377 


89 


344 


1 


6 


818 


Johnston 


Gen 


10 


23 


284 


136 


288 


66 


807 




Dom 


3 


385 


125 


661 


2 


60 


1,236 


Lee 


Gen 


12 


92 


278 


54 


440 





876 


- 


Dom 





355 


64 


277 





2 


698 


District Totals 


Gen 


28 


142 


860 


348 


880 


68 


2,326 




% of Total 


1.2% 


6.1% 


37.0% 


15.0% 


37.8% 


2.9% 


100.0% 




Dom 


4 


1,117 


278 


1,282 


3 


68 


2,752 




% of Total 


0.1% 


40.6% 


10.1% 


46.6% 


0.1% 


2.5% 


100.0% 


District 12 


















Cumberland 


Gen 


8 


274 


392 


126 


807 


315 


1,922 




% of Total 


0.4% 


14.3% 


20.4% 


6.6% 


42.0% 


16.4% 


100.0% 




Dom 





2,777 


324 


1,083 


5 


468 


4,657 




% of Total 


0.0% 


59.6% 


7.0% 


23.3% 


0.1% 


10.0% 


100.0% 



*General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



203 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Judge's Final 
Order or 
Trial by Trial by Voluntary Judgment 
Jury Judge Dismissal W 



District 13 










Bladen 


Gen 





45 


91 




Dom 





179 


31 


Brunswick 


Gen 


3 


81 


201 




Dom 





327 


81 


Columbus 


Gen 


16 


93 


160 




Dom 





347 


116 


District Totals 


Gen 


19 


219 


452 




% of Total 


1.4% 


16.7% 


34.5% 




Dom 





853 


228 




% of Total 


0.0% 


53.0% 


14.2% 


District 14 










Durham 


Gen 


4 


28 


571 




% of Total 


0.2% 


1.4% 


28.8% 




Dom 





1,112 


158 




% of Total 


0.0% 


48.9% 


6.9% 


District 15A 










Alamance 


Gen 


2 


92 


354 




% of Total 


0.2% 


8.1% 


31.0% 




Dom 





747 


110 




% of Total 


0.0% 


60.0% 


8.8% 


District 15B 










Chatham 


Gen 





10 


37 




Dom 





141 


29 


Orange 


Gen 





155 


184 




Dom 





512 


33 


District Totals 


Gen 





165 


221 




% of Total 


0.0% 


24.7% 


33.1% 




Dom 





653 


62 




% of Total 


0.0% 


60.6% 


5.8% 


District 16A 










Hoke 


Gen 





25 


42 




Dom 





158 


34 


Scotland 


Gen 





26 


72 




Dom 





204 


44 


District Totals 


Gen 





51 


114 




% of Total 


0.0% 


13.9% 


31.1% 




Dom 





362 


78 




% of Total 


0.0% 


37.0% 


8.0% 



■ment 






Total 


ut Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


21 


213 


2 


372 


131 


1 


4 


346 


20 


151 


40 


496 


119 


1 


40 


568 


62 


91 


21 


443 


187 





44 


694 


103 


455 


63 


1,311 


7.9% 


34.7% 


4.8% 


100.0% 


437 


2 


88 


1,608 


27.2% 


0.1% 


5.5% 


100.0% 


161 


1,062 


159 


1,985 


8.1% 


53.5% 


8.0% 


100.0% 


828 





178 


2,276 


36.4% 


0.0% 


7.8% 


100.0% 


79 


492 


122 


1,141 


6.9% 


43.1% 


10.7% 


100.0% 


295 


4 


89 


1,245 


23.7% 


0.3% 


7.1% 


100.0% 


15 


59 


24 


145 


156 





62 


388 


14 


147 


23 


523 


135 


1 


9 


690 


29 


206 


47 


668 


4.3% 


30.8% 


7.0% 


100.0% 


291 


1 


71 


1,078 


27.0% 


0.1% 


6.6% 


100.0% 


2 


40 


2 


111 


176 





3 


371 


20 


113 


24 


255 


343 


1 


15 


607 


22 


153 


26 


366 


6.0% 


41.8% 


7.1% 


100.0% 


519 


1 


18 


978 


53.1% 


0.1% 


1.8% 


100.0% 



"General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



204 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Judge's Final 
Order or 







Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 16B 


















Robeson 


Gen 





147 


178 


16 


437 


2 


780 




% of Total 


0.0% 


18.8% 


22.8% 


2.1% 


56.0% 


0.3% 


100.0% 




Dom 





799 


99 


571 


6 


31 


1,506 




% of Total 


0.0% 


53.1% 


6.6% 


37.9% 


0.4% 


2.1% 


100.0% 


District 17A 


















Caswell 


Gen 


2 


17 


11 


6 


15 


5 


56 




Dom 





118 


7 


76 





15 


216 


Rockingham 


Gen 


1 


58 


107 


14 


337 


54 


571 




Dom 


1 


495 


79 


316 





85 


976 


District Totals 


Gen 


3 


75 


118 


20 


352 


59 


627 




% of Total 


0.5% 


12.0% 


18.8% 


3.2% 


56.1% 


9.4% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


613 


86 


392 





100 


1,192 




% of Total 


0.1% 


51.4% 


7.2% 


32.9% 


0.0% 


8.4% 


100.0% 


District 17B 


















Stokes 


Gen 





14 


26 


6 


49 


3 


98 




Dom 





145 


26 


76 


3 


8 


258 


Surry 


Gen 


i 


24 


175 


53 


212 


13 


478 




Dom 





404 


119 


254 


2 


13 


792 


District Totals 


Gen 


i 


38 


201 


59 


261 


16 


576 




% of Total 


0.2% 


6.6% 


34.9% 


10.2% 


45.3% 


2.8% 


100.0% 




Dom 





549 


145 


330 


5 


21 


1,050 




% of Total 


0.0% 


52.3% 


13.8% 


31.4% 


0.5% 


2.0% 


100.0% 


District 18 


















Guilford 


Gen 


10 


526 


1,561 


253 


2,183 


952 


5,485 




% of Total 


0.2% 


9.6% 


28.5% 


4.6% 


39.8% 


17.4% 


100.0% 




Dom 


4 


3,386 


178 


442 


17 


764 


4,791 




% of Total 


0.1% 


70.7% 


3.7% 


9.2% 


0.4% 


15.9% 


100.0% 


District 19A 


















Cabarrus 


Gen 


12 


66 


244 


110 


467 


77 


976 




% of Total 


1.2% 


6.8% 


25.0% 


11.3% 


47.8% 


7.9% 


100.0% 




Dom 





653 


65 


378 


3 


65 


1,164 




% of Total 


0.0% 


56.1% 


5.6% 


32.5% 


0.3% 


5.6% 


100.0% 



*General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



205 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON- MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Judge's Final 
Order or 







Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 19B 


















Montgomery 


Gen 





55 


84 


3 


123 


34 


299 




Dom 





232 


49 


3 


1 


26 


311 


Randolph 


Gen 


7 


63 


130 


52 


266 


21 


539 




Dom 


1 


550 


51 


277 





50 


929 


District Totals 


Gen 


7 


118 


214 


55 


389 


55 


838 




% of Total 


0.8% 


14.1% 


25.5% 


6.6% 


46.4% 


6.6% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


782 


100 


280 


1 


76 


1,240 




% of Total 


0.1% 


63.1% 


8.1% 


22.6% 


0.1% 


6.1% 


100.0% 


District 19C 


















Rowan 


Gen 


2 


42 


228 


47 


408 


32 


759 




% of Total 


0.3% 


5.5% 


30.0% 


6.2% 


53.8% 


4.2% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


589 


105 


426 


4 


94 


1,219 




% of Total 


0.1% 


48.3% 


8.6% 


34.9% 


0.3% 


7.7% 


100.0% 


District 20 


















Anson 


Gen 





6 


40 


13 


48 


19 


126 




Dom 





100 


42 


154 


1 


11 


308 


Moore 


Gen 


1 


90 


132 


18 


135 


13 


389 




Dom 





318 


37 


213 


1 


11 


580 


Richmond 


Gen 


1 


19 


95 


12 


131 


30 


288 




Dom 





311 


50 


291 


4 


70 


726 


Stanly 


Gen 





88 


224 


6 


227 


51 


596 




Dom 





235 


49 


194 


2 


90 


570 


Union 


Gen 


2 


77 


135 


29 


211 


18 


472 




Dom 


1 


488 


58 


256 


1 


8 


812 


District Totals 


Gen 


4 


280 


626 


78 


752 


131 


1,871 




% of Total 


0.2% 


15.0% 


33.5% 


4.2% 


40.2% 


7.0% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


1,452 


236 


1,108 


9 


190 


2,996 




% of Total 


0.0% 


48.5% 


7.9% 


37.0% 


0.3% 


6.3% 


100.0% 


District 21 


















Forsyth 


Gen 


9 


151 


1,101 


327 


1,926 


235 


3,749 




% of Total 


0.2% 


4.0% 


29.4% 


8.7% 


51.4% 


6.3% 


100.0% 




Dom 





1,933 


199 


865 


3 


155 


3,155 




% of Total 


0.0% 


61.3% 


6.3% 


27.4% 


0.1% 


4.9% 


100.0% 



'General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



206 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 









July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 


















Judge's Final 


















Order or 












Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 22 


















Alexander 


Gen 


1 


6 


24 


12 


30 


12 


85 




Dom 


1 


145 


17 


98 





16 


277 


Davidson 


Gen 


2 


70 


168 


52 


319 


37 


648 




Dom 





673 


98 


515 


3 


52 


1,341 


Davie 


Gen 


2 


18 


45 


3 


34 


5 


107 




Dom 





169 


25 


69 





4 


267 


Iredell 


Gen 


4 


114 


324 


39 


448 


69 


998 




Dom 





574 


74 


488 





110 


1,246 


District Totals 


Gen 


9 


208 


561 


106 


831 


123 


1,838 




% of Total 


0.5% 


11.3% 


30.5% 


5.8% 


45.2% 


6.7% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


1,561 


214 


1,170 


3 


182 


3,131 




% of Total 


0.0% 


49.9% 


6.8% 


37.4% 


0.1% 


5.8% 


100.0% 


District 23 


















Alleghany 


Gen 





6 


17 


10 


15 


7 


55 




Dom 





66 


20 


27 


1 


4 


118 


Ashe 


Gen 


3 


22 


23 


11 


37 


4 


100 




Dom 





120 


24 


61 





1 


206 


Wilkes 


Gen 


2 


124 


169 


5 


650 


30 


980 




Dom 





465 


48 


96 


3 


35 


647 


Yadkin 


Gen 


3 


22 


55 


24 


72 


9 


185 




Dom 


1 


137 


17 


116 





16 


287 


District Totals 


Gen 


8 


174 


264 


50 


774 


50 


1,320 




% of Total 


0.6% 


13.2% 


20.0% 


3.8% 


58.6% 


3.8% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


788 


109 


300 


4 


56 


1,258 




% of Total 


0.1% 


62.6% 


8.7% 


23.8% 


0.3% 


4.5% 


100.0% 


District 24 


















Avery 


Gen 





12 


45 


6 


44 


14 


121 




Dom 





62 


12 


23 





14 


111 


Madison 


Gen 








12 


9 


18 





39 




Dom 


1 


78 


24 


50 





7 


160 


Mitchell 


Gen 





14 


39 


10 


56 


3 


122 




Dom 





62 


11 


41 





3 


117 


Watauga 


Gen 


1 


39 


122 


52 


73 


11 


298 




Dom 


1 


145 


36 


73 


2 


34 


291 


Yancey 


Gen 


1 


6 


13 


6 


17 


1 


44 




Dom 





93 


13 


22 


1 


14 


143 


District Totals 


Gen 


2 


71 


231 


83 


208 


29 


624 




% of Total 


0.3% 


11.4% 


37.0% 


13.3% 


33.3% 


4.6% 


100.0% 




Dom 


2 


440 


96 


209 


3 


72 


822 




% of Total 


0.2% 


53.5% 


11.7% 


25.4% 


0.4% 


8.8% 


100.0% 



*General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



207 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON- MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Judge's Final 
Order or 







Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 25 


















Burke 


Gen 


2 


34 


230 


94 


335 


48 


743 




Dom 


1 


502 


90 


313 





25 


931 


Caldwell 


Gen 





69 


122 


59 


219 


2 


471 




Dom 





556 


40 


246 





13 


855 


Catawba 


Gen 


5 


39 


267 


221 


562 


90 


1,184 




Dom 





894 


65 


648 


2 


45 


1,654 


District Totals 


Gen 


7 


142 


619 


374 


1,116 


140 


2,398 




% of Total 


0.3% 


5.9% 


25.8% 


15.6% 


46.5% 


5.8% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


1,952 


195 


1,207 


2 


83 


3,440 




% of Total 


0.0% 


56.7% 


5.7% 


35.1% 


0.1% 


2.4% 


100.0% 


District 26 


















Mecklenburg 


Gen 


32 


1,313 


3,037 


846 


4,433 


76 


9,737 




% of Total 


0.3% 


13.5% 


31.2% 


8.7% 


45.5% 


0.8% 


100.0% 




Dom 


4 


4,018 


386 


1,717 


20 


4 


6,149 




% of Total 


0.1% 


65.3% 


6.3% 


27.9% 


0.3% 


0.1% 


100.0% 


District 27A 


















Gaston 


Gen 


13 


66 


308 


322 


536 


96 


1,341 




% of Total 


1.0% 


4.9% 


23.0% 


24.0% 


40.0% 


7.2% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


1,559 


120 


870 


1 


123 


2,674 




% of Total 


0.0% 


58.3% 


4.5% 


32.5% 


0.0% 


4.6% 


100.0% 


District 27B 


















Cleveland 


Gen 


7 


72 


117 


45 


194 


51 


486 




Dom 


1 


961 


103 


408 





157 


1,630 


Lincoln 


Gen 


4 


31 


59 


49 


111 


3 


257 




Dom 


1 


360 


36 


221 


2 


5 


625 


District Totals 


Gen 


11 


103 


176 


94 


305 


54 


743 




% of Total 


1.5% 


13.9% 


23.7% 


12.7% 


41.0% 


7.3% 


100.0% 




Dom 


2 


1,321 


139 


629 


2 


162 


2,255 




% of Total 


0.1% 


58.6% 


6.2% 


27.9% 


0.1% 


7.2% 


100.0% 


District 28 


















Buncombe 


Gen 


15 


253 


447 


83 


615 


111 


1,524 




% of Total 


1.0% 


16.6% 


29.3% 


5.4% 


40.4% 


7.3% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


1,528 


236 


274 


13 


196 


2,248 




% of Total 


0.0% 


68.0% 


10.5% 


12.2% 


0.6% 


8.7% 


100.0% 



*General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



208 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Judge's Final 
Order or 







Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 29 


















Henderson 


Gen 


3 


37 


158 


92 


152 


24 


466 




Dom 


1 


475 


60 


206 


1 


23 


766 


McDowell 


Gen 





25 


46 


8 


96 


24 


199 




Dom 





327 


31 


40 


1 


24 


423 


Polk 


Gen 


1 


9 


13 


10 


9 


5 


47 




Dom 


2 


70 


9 


6 


2 


6 


95 


Rutherford 


Gen 





57 


69 


6 


127 


21 


280 




Dom 





458 


16 


168 


1 


2 


645 


Transylvania 


Gen 


1 


11 


31 


34 


48 


7 


132 




Dom 





115 


32 


94 





15 


256 


District Totals 


Gen 


5 


139 


317 


150 


432 


81 


1,124 




% of Total 


0.4% 


12.4% 


28.2% 


13.3% 


38.4% 


7.2% 


100.0% 




Dom 


3 


1,445 


148 


514 


5 


70 


2,185 




% of Total 


0.1% 


66.1% 


6.8% 


23.5% 


0.2% 


3.2% 


100.0% 


District 30 


















Cherokee 


Gen 





21 


25 


16 


69 


21 


152 




Dom 





99 


23 


50 


1 


21 


194 


Clay 


Gen 





1 


15 


18 


27 


3 


64 




Dom 








6 


40 





1 


47 


Graham 


Gen 





7 


13 


4 


19 


4 


47 




Dom 





43 


5 


6 








54 


Haywood 


Gen 


5 


32 


82 


39 


134 


14 


306 




Dom 


1 


354 


46 


149 


6 


5 


561 


Jackson 


Gen 





6 


51 


42 


57 


16 


172 




Dom 





14 


27 


190 


1 


27 


259 


Macon 


Gen 


1 


12 


36 


15 


35 


11 


110 




Dom 





135 


20 


57 


1 


1 


214 


Swain 


Gen 


1 


3 


13 


18 


15 


5 


55 




Dom 





63 


17 


29 


2 


5 


116 


District Totals 


Gen 


7 


82 


235 


152 


356 


74 


906 




% of Total 


0.8% 


9.1% 


25.9% 


16.8% 


39.3% 


8.2% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


708 


144 


521 


11 


60 


1,445 




% of Total 


0.1% 


49.0% 


10.0% 


36.1% 


0.8% 


4.2% 


100.0% 


State Totals 


Gen 


299 


6,463 


18,133 


6,320 


27,914 


4,215 


63,344 




% of Total 


0.5% 


10.2% 


28.6% 


10.0% 


44.1% 


6.7% 


100.0% 




Dom 


33 


46,012 


5,719 


24,580 


183 


4,668 


81,195 




% of Total 


0.0% 


56.7% 


7.0% 


30.3% 


0.2% 


5.7% 


100.0% 



*General civil cases and appeals and transfers from magistrates are identified as Gen, and domestic relations cases as Dom. 



209 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



<6 

10 
27 
29 
59 
25 
113 
47 



% 

40.0% 
46.6% 
39.2% 
46.8% 
67.6% 
46.3% 
39.5% 



6-12 

4 
15 
12 
17 

9 
45 
12 



<7c 

16.0% 
25.9% 
16.2% 
13.5% 
24.3% 
18.4% 
10.1% 



>12 

11 
16 
33 
50 
3 
86 
60 



% 

44.0% 
27.6% 
44.6% 
39.7% 
8.1% 
35.2% 
50.4% 



Total Mean Median 

Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 



25 

58 

74 

126 

37 

244 

119 



447.8 
357.8 
391.0 
369.4 
158.3 
351.1 
668.2 



360.0 
194.5 
290.5 
233.0 
124.0 
209.0 
367.0 



District Totals 



310 



45.4% 



114 



16.7% 



259 



37.9% 



683 



407.7 



221.0 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 



110 

6 

65 

6 

32 



34.4% 
42.9% 
32.7% 
40.0% 

54.2% 



37 
1 

22 

2 

12 



11.6% 
7.1% 
11.1% 
13.3% 
20.3% 



173 

7 
112 

7 
15 



54.1% 
50.0% 
56.3% 
46.7% 
25.4% 



320 

14 

199 

15 

59 



581.0 
452.3 
666.2 
388.3 
273.8 



421.0 
304.5 
563.0 
270.0 
114.0 



District Totals 



219 



36.1% 



74 



12.2% 



314 



51.7% 



607 



571.3 



387.0 



District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 

District Totals 



130 

245 

17 

197 

589 



73.4% 
72.5% 
54.8% 
74.9% 

72.8% 



28 

58 

8 

44 

138 



15.8% 
17.2% 
25.8% 
16.7% 

17.1% 



19 


10.7% 


177 


158.9 


96.0 


35 


10.4% 


338 


152.1 


74.0 


6 


19.4% 


31 


247.4 


142.0 


22 


8.4% 


263 


141.4 


89.0 



82 



10.1% 



809 



153.8 



86.0 



District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 



107 

32 

548 

103 



58.2% 
56.1% 
37.3% 
58.9% 



32 

9 

236 

44 



17.4% 
15.8% 
16.1% 
25.1% 



45 

16 

686 

28 



24.5% 
28.1% 
46.7% 
16.0% 



184 

57 

1,470 

175 



239.5 
299.0 
480.7 
198.1 



131.5 
151.0 
313.5 
111.0 



District Totals 



790 



41.5 



321 



17.0% 



775 



41.1% 



1,886 



425.5 



249.0 



District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 



343 
76 



53.0% 
54.3% 



171 
38 



26.4% 
27.1% 



133 
26 



20.6% 
18.6% 



647 
140 



216.5 
204.3 



156.0 
146.0 



District Totals 



419 



53.2% 



209 



26.6% 



159 



20.2% 



787 



214.3 



153.0 



District 6A 

Halifax 



208 



83.2% 



27 



10.8% 



15 



6.0% 



250 



121.3 



70.5 



District 6B 

Bertie 
Hertford 

Northampton 



47 
6) 

55 



40.9% 
46.2% 

46.2% 



38 
47 
36 



33.0% 
35.6% 
30.3% 



30 

24 
28 



26.1% 
18.2% 
23.5% 



115 


259.5 


227.0 


132 


226.5 


184.0 


119 


237.3 


199.0 



District Totals 



163 



44.5% 



121 



33.1% 



82 



22.4% 



366 



240.4 



199.5 



210 



District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



<6 



c 'c 



160 61.8% 
220 55.7% 
172 77.5% 



6-12 

46 

56 

28 



% 

17.8% 
14.2% 
12.6% 



>12 

.S3 

119 

22 



20.5% 

30.1% 

9.9% 



Total Mean Median 

Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 

259 288.3 110.0 

395 338.1 144.0 

222 144.3 65.0 



District Totals 



552 



63.0% 



130 



14.8% 



194 



22.1% 



876 



274.2 



109.0 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



25 
141 
438 



75.8% 
77.9% 
58.4% 



5 

23 

237 



15.2% 
12.7% 
31.6% 



3 

17 
75 



9.1% 

9.4% 

10.0% 



33 

181 
750 



169.5 
163.6 
189.0 



102.0 

75.0 

143.0 



District Totals 



604 



62.7% 



265 



27.5% 



95 



9.9% 



964 



183.6 



121.0 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



75 
72 
46 
78 
37 



44.9% 
49.3% 
56.8% 
41.3% 
50.7% 



48 
41 

21 
56 

22 



28.7% 
28.1% 
25.9% 
29.6% 
30.1% 



44 
33 
14 
55 

14 



26.3% 
22.6% 
17.3% 
29.1% 
19.2% 



167 
146 

81 
189 

73 



288.3 
249.8 
198.3 
279.5 
222.0 



214.0 
195.5 
125.0 
265.0 
179.0 



District Totals 



308 



47.0% 



28.7% 



160 



24.4% 



656 



258.7 



204.5 



District 10 

Wake 



1,332 23.1% 



766 



13.3% 



3,671 



63.6% 



5,769 827.6 



608.0 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 



183 
197 
183 



68.8% 
77.0% 
72.9% 



58 
42 
56 



21.8% 
16.4% 
22.3% 



25 
17 
12 



9.4% 
6.6% 
4.8% 



266 
256 

251 



146.7 
135.7 
127.9 



108.5 

65.0 

102.0 



District Totals 



563 



72.8% 



156 



20.2% 



54 



IX 



773 



137.0 



87.0 



District 12 

Cumberland 



1,355 



52.6% 



515 



20.0% 



705 



27.4% 



2,575 245.5 



163.0 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 



57 
150 
152 



68.7% 
41.2% 
47.2% 



14 
61 
51 



16.9% 
16.8% 
15.8% 



12 
153 
119 



14.5% 
42.0% 
37.0% 



83 
364 
322 



172.1 
393.3 
338.5 



95.0 
259.0 
229.5 



District Totals 



359 



46.7% 



126 



16.4% 



284 



36.9% 



769 



346.5 



221.0 



District 14 

Durham 



573 



34.5% 



246 



14.8% 



842 



50.7% 



1,661 



508.1 



373.0 



District ISA 

Alamance 



311 



65.2% 



86 



18.0% 



80 



16.8% 



477 



186.8 



94.0 



21 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 





<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Pending 


Age (Days) Age (Da. 


District 15B 




















Chatham 


109 


59.6% 


32 


17.5% 


42 


23.0% 


183 


211.0 


145.0 


Orange 


191 


41.9% 


89 


19.5% 


176 


38.6% 


456 


335.8 


272.5 


District Totals 


300 


46.9% 


121 


18.9% 


218 


34.1% 


639 


300.0 


216.0 


District 16A 




















Hoke 


58 


61.7% 


17 


18.1% 


19 


20.2% 


94 


206.6 


133.0 


Scotland 


102 


59.6% 


37 


21.6% 


32 


18.7% 


171 


220.6 


125.0 


District Totals 


160 


60.4% 


54 


20.4% 


51 


19.2% 


265 


215.7 


129.0 


District 16B 




















Robeson 


305 


41.6% 


86 


11.7% 


343 


46.7% 


734 


447.1 


312.5 


District 17A 




















Caswell 


28 


47.5% 


11 


18.6% 


20 


33.9% 


59 


338.9 


205.0 


Rockingham 


162 


72.3% 


32 


14.3% 


30 


13.4% 


224 


165.6 


95.0 


District Totals 


190 


67.1% 


43 


15.2% 


50 


17.7% 


283 


201.7 


100.0 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


48 


47.1% 


23 


22.5% 


31 


30.4% 


102 


292.7 


235.0 


Surry 


104 


51.7% 


36 


17.9% 


61 


30.3% 


201 


367.2 


158.0 


District Totals 


152 


50.2% 


59 


19.5% 


92 


30.4% 


303 


342.2 


172.0 


District 18 




















Guilford 


1,154 


34.8% 


460 


13.9% 


1,700 


51.3% 


3,314 


579.2 


381.5 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


223 


82.6% 


42 


15.6% 


5 


1.9% 


270 


91.6 


51.5 


District 19B 




















Montgomery 


96 


43.0% 


67 


30.0% 


60 


26.9% 


223 


266.9 


199.0 


Randolph 


156 


51.3% 


59 


19.4% 


89 


29.3% 


304 


336.9 


166.5 


District Totals 


252 


47.8% 


126 


23.9% 


149 


28.3% 


527 


307.3 


199.0 


District 19C 




















Rowan 


204 


60.2% 


81 


23.9% 


54 


15.9% 


339 


196.0 


128.0 


District 20 




















Anson 


45 


29.4% 


18 


11.8% 


90 


58.8% 


153 


578.7 


607.0 


Moore 


143 


43.3% 


55 


16.7% 


132 


40.0% 


330 


362.9 


255.0 


Richmond 


168 


56.2% 


39 


13.0% 


92 


30.8% 


299 


286.4 


146.0 


Stanly 


132 


50.0% 


47 


17.8% 


85 


32.2% 


264 


263.4 


178.5 


Union 


123 


39.5% 


58 


18.6% 


130 


41.8% 


311 


325.9 


285.0 


District Totals 


611 


45.0% 


217 


16.0% 


529 


39.0% 


1,357 


342.5 


247.0 


District 21 




















Forsyth 


736 


58.5% 


224 


17.8% 


298 


23.7% 


1,258 


233.7 


121.0 



212 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 





<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Pending 


Age (Days) Age (Da 


District 22 




















Alexander 


37 


57.8% 


9 


14.1% 


18 


28.1% 


64 


320.4 


138.5 


Davidson 


227 


38.0% 


97 


16.2% 


273 


45.7% 


597 


445.1 


319.0 


Davie 


76 


56.3% 


26 


19.3% 


33 


24.4% 


135 


236.8 


156.0 


Iredell 


215 


62.5% 


54 


15.7% 


75 


21.8% 


344 


208.7 


108.5 


District Totals 


555 


48.7% 


186 


16.3% 


399 


35.0% 


1,140 


342.1 


202.5 


District 23 




















Alleghany 


27 


79.4% 


5 


14.7% 


2 


5.9% 


34 


116.5 


64.0 


Ashe 


30 


46.9% 


13 


20.3% 


21 


32.8% 


6-1 


339.5 


224.0 


Wilkes 


130 


78.8% 


21 


12.7% 


14 


8.5% 


165 


133.6 


65.0 


Yadkin 


57 


62.6% 


7 


7.7% 


27 


29.7% 


91 


316.9 


109.0 


District Totals 


244 


68.9% 


46 


13.0% 


64 


18.1% 


354 


216.3 


82.5 


District 24 




















Avery 


30 


27.5% 


2} 


21.1% 


56 


51.4% 


109 


589.0 


375.0 


Madison 


44 


62.0% 


10 


14.1% 


17 


23.9% 


71 


291.4 


121.0 


Mitchell 


42 


48.8% 


12 


14.0% 


32 


37.2% 


86 


495.8 


186.0 


Watauga 


66 


52.4% 


29 


23.0% 


31 


24.6% 


126 


302.9 


156.0 


Yancey 


32 


64.0% 


8 


16.0% 


10 


20.0% 


50 


252.8 


110.0 


District Totals 


214 


48.4% 


82 


18.6% 


146 


33.0% 


442 


403.5 


194.5 


District 25 




















Burke 


188 


66.9% 


62 


22.1% 


31 


11.0% 


281 


167.0 


107.0 


Caldwell 


150 


58.8% 


56 


22.0% 


49 


19.2% 


255 


203.0 


128.0 


Catawba 


360 


56.7% 


118 


18.6% 


157 


24.7% 


635 


232.4 


139.0 


District Totals 


698 


59.6% 


236 


20.2% 


237 


20.2% 


1,171 


210.3 


125.0 


District 26 




















Mecklenburg 


1,589 


52.7% 


655 


21.7% 


772 


25.6% 


3,016 


244.8 


158.0 


District 27A 




















Gaston 


456 


72.2% 


107 


16.9% 


69 


10.9% 


632 


139.7 


74.0 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


340 


89.0% 


38 


9.9% 


4 


1.0% 


382 


83.3 


51.5 


Lincoln 


107 


89.9% 


10 


8.4% 


2 


1.7% 


119 


86.9 


69.0 


District Totals 


447 


89.2% 


48 


9.6% 


6 


1.2% 


501 


84.2 


58.0 


District 28 




















Buncombe 


517 


50.7% 


218 


21.4% 


284 


27.9% 


1,019 


286.1 


174.0 



213 



District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 

District Totals 

District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 



<6 

170 
94 

22 

118 

81 

485 



Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



<7r 

49.4% 
50.5% 
52.4% 
52.7% 
55.1% 

51.4% 



6-12 

57 
42 
9 
35 
20 

163 



% 

16.6% 
22.6% 
21.4% 
15.6% 
13.6% 

17.3% 



>12 

117 
50 

11 
71 
46 

295 



% 

34.0% 
26.9% 
26.2% 
31.7% 
31.3% 

31.3% 



Total Mean Median 

Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 



344 
186 
42 
224 
147 

943 



332.4 
279.5 
248.7 
309.5 
361.1 

317.3 



185.0 
179.0 
147.5 
165.5 
163.0 

171.0 



46 


59.0% 


5 


6.4% 


27 


34.6% 


78 


588.3 


136.0 


8 


61.5% 


5 


38.5% 





0.0% 


13 


172.9 


104.0 


27 


65.9% 


8 


19.5% 


6 


14.6% 


41 


248.5 


125.0 


117 


40.3% 


50 


17.2% 


123 


42.4% 


290 


527.2 


284.0 


49 


50.0% 


18 


18.4% 


31 


31.6% 


98 


312.7 


189.0 


43 


45.7% 


16 


17.0% 


35 


37.2% 


94 


539.9 


219.0 


20 


58.8% 


6 


17.6% 


8 


23.5% 


34 


276.0 


151.0 



District Totals 310 47.8% 108 16.7% 230 35.5% 648 466.0 203.5 

State Totals 18,457 47.2% 6,844 17.5% 13,762 35.2% 39,063 395.8 209.0 



214 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



<6 

20 

159 

58 
201 

54 
259 

73 



% 

83.3% 
80.3% 
65.9% 
82.4% 
70.1% 
86.9% 
83.9% 



6-12 

3 
29 

is 
26 

10 

22 
9 



% 

12.5% 
14.6% 
20.5% 
10.7% 
13.0% 
7.4% 
10.3% 



■ 12 

1 
10 
12 
17 
13 
17 

5 



<■< 

4.2% 
5.1% 

13.6% 
7.0% 

16.9% 
5.7% 
5.7% 



Total Mean Median 

Disposed Age (Days) Age (Days) 



21 
198 

88 
244 

77 
298 

87 



83.9 
90.9 
193.2 
131.7 
194.5 
105.2 
137.2 



52.0 
34.0 
86.5 
74.0 
64.0 
56.0 
83.0 



District Totals 



824 



81.1% 



117 



11.5% 



75 



7.4% 



1,016 



125.4 



60.0 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 
Tyrrell 
Washington 



587 
37 

257 
45 

176 



93.5% 
61.7% 
88.3% 
97.8% 
88.4% 



21 
5 

17 
1 

16 



3.3% 
8.3% 
5.8% 
2.2% 
8.0% 



20 


3.2% 


628 


61.8 


5.0 


18 


30.0% 


60 


262.8 


68.5 


17 


5.8% 


291 


74.7 


26.0 





0.0% 


46 


29.1 


0.0 


7 


3.5% 


199 


70.8 


12.0 



District Totals 1,102 



90.0% 



60 



4.9% 



62 



5.1% 



1,224 



75.0 



9.0 



District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 



436 
742 
103 

971 



70.4% 
76.3% 
84.4% 
84.1% 



95 

130 

10 

116 



15.3% 

13.4% 

8.2% 

10.0% 



101 

9 

68 



14.2% 

10.4% 

7.4% 

5.9% 



619 

973 

122 

1,155 



162.9 

126.9 

105.1 

94.6 



65.0 
55.0 
42.5 
46.0 



District Totals 2,252 



78.5% 



351 



12.2% 



266 



9.3% 



2,869 



120.7 



53.0 



District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 



405 

119 

1,451 

489 



83.2% 
86.9% 
79.2% 

88.3% 



55 

14 
209 

37 



11.3% 

10.2% 

11.4% 

6.7% 



27 

4 

173 

28 



5.5% 
2.9% 
9.4% 

5.1% 



487 

137 

1,833 

554 



95.6 
72.9 

141.7 
79.9 



53.0 
40.0 
58.0 
41.0 



District Totals 2,464 



81.8% 



315 



10.5% 



232 



7.7% 



3,011 



119.7 



53.0 



District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 



1,391 
268 



78.7% 
81.0% 



116 
26 



6.6% 
7.9% 



260 
37 



14.7% 
11.2% 



1,767 
331 



135.0 
118.0 



50.0 
55.0 



District Totals 1,659 



79.1% 



142 



6.8% 



297 



14.2% 



2,098 



132.3 



50.0 



District 6A 

Halifax 



893 



83.6% 



121 



11.3% 



54 



5.1% 



1,068 



99.0 



62.5 



District 6B 

Bertie 

Hertford 

Northampton 



279 
345 
230 



80.4% 
83.7% 
83.0% 



40 
42 

22 



11.5% 

10.2% 

7.9% 



2s 


8.1% 


347 


104.5 


42.0 


25 


6.1% 


412 


101.1 


53.0 


25 


9.0% 


277 


123.8 


53.0 



District Totals 



854 



82.4% 



104 



10.0% 



7S 



7.5% 



1,036 



108.3 



51.0 



215 



District 7 
Edgecombe 

Nash 
Wilson 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



<6 



% 



697 82.3% 
984 87.5% 
914 89.9% 



6-12 



% 



102 12.0% 

77 6.8% 

59 5.8% 



>12 



% 



48 5.7% 

64 5.7% 

44 4.3% 



Total Mean Median 

Disposed Age (Days) Age (Days) 



847 
1,125 
1,017 



93.7 46.0 

95.8 49.0 
66.3 30.0 



District Totals 2,595 



86.8% 



238 



156 



5.2% 



2,989 



85.2 



42.0 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



143 

553 

1,144 



84.6% 
80.0% 
73.7% 



18 

84 

120 



10.7% 

12.2% 

7.7% 



54 
288 



4.7% 

7.8% 

18.6% 



169 
691 

1,552 



98.0 
119.7 
158.8 



38.0 
48.0 
59.0 



District Totals 1,840 



76.3% 



222 



9.2% 



350 



14.5% 



2,412 



143.4 



53.0 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



364 
353 
291 
420 
185 



85.6% 
85.7% 
88.7% 
80.5% 
78.1% 



41 
38 
23 
66 
31 



9.6% 

9.2% 

7.0% 

12.6% 

13.1% 



20 
21 
14 
36 

21 



4.7% 
5.1% 
4.3% 
6.9% 



425 
412 
328 
522 
237 



88.2 

84.4 

77.7 

102.8 

113.7 



44.0 
40.0 
42.0 
38.0 
43.0 



District Totals 1,613 



83.8% 



199 



10.3% 



112 



1,924 



92.7 



41.5 



District 10 

Wake 



2,757 90.9% 



104 



3.4% 



173 



5.7% 



3,034 



121.3 



42.0 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 



665 

1,001 

526 



81.3% 
81.0% 
75.4% 



65 

139 

85 



7.9% 
11.2% 
12.2% 



96 

87 



10.8% 

7.8% 

12.5% 



818 

1,236 

698 



103.2 
101.0 
128.7 



42.0 
43.0 
43.0 



District Totals 2,192 



79.7% 



289 



10.5% 



271 



2,752 108.7 



42.0 



District 12 

Cumberland 



3,495 



75.0% 



480 



10.3% 



682 



14.6% 



4,657 162.4 



64.0 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 



316 
430 
495 



91.3% 
75.7% 
71.3% 



19 
41 
43 



5.5% 
7.2% 
6.2% 



11 

97 

156 



3.2% 
17.1% 
22.5% 



346 
568 
694 



66.8 
196.0 
256.3 



25.5 
63.0 
56.0 



District Totals 1,241 



77.2% 



103 



6.4% 



264 



16.4% 



1,608 



194.2 



51.0 



District 14 

Durham 



1,713 



75.3% 



121 



5.3% 



442 19.4% 



2,276 249.3 



50.0 



District 15A 

Alamance 



1,033 



83.0% 



106 



8.5% 



106 



8.5% 



1,245 



109.6 



50.0 



216 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



<6 

312 
564 



% 

80.4% 
81.7% 



6-12 

42 
31 



10.8% 
4.5% 



>12 

34 

95 



% 



13.8% 



Total Mean Median 

Disposed Age (Days) Age (Days) 



388 
690 



101.1 
140.4 



41.0 
40.0 



District Totals 



876 



81.3% 



73 



6.8% 



129 



12.0% 



1,078 



126.3 



40.5 



District 16A 
Hoke 

Scotland 



300 
517 



80.9% 
85.2% 



43 
42 



11.6% 
6.9% 



28 
48 



7.5% 
7.9% 



371 
607 



97.3 
99.6 



9.0 

7.0 



District Totals 



817 



83.5% 



85 



8.7% 



76 



7.8% 



978 



98.7 



9.0 



District 16B 

Robeson 



1,308 



86.9% 



104 



6.9% 



94 



6.2% 



1,506 



106.0 



33.0 



District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 



184 
785 



85.2% 
80.4% 



15 
136 



6.9% 
13.9% 



17 

55 



7.9% 
5.6% 



216 
976 



84.6 
96.0 



19.0 
42.0 



District Totals 



969 



81.3% 



151 



12.7% 



72 



6.0% 



1,192 



94.0 



40.0 



District 17B 

Stokes 
Surry 



222 
663 



86.0% 
83.7% 



20 
38 



7.8% 
4.8% 



16 
91 



6.2% 
11.5% 



258 
792 



96.5 
136.7 



46.0 
42.0 



District Totals 



885 



84.3% 



58 



5.5% 



107 



10.2% 



1,050 



126.8 



43.0 



District 18 

Guilford 



3,640 76.0% 



241 



5.0% 



910 



19.0% 



4,791 259.0 



55.0 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 



1,023 87.9% 



120 



10.3% 



21 



1.8% 



1,164 



74.3 



44.0 



District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 



179 
752 



57.6% 
80.9% 



34 
98 



10.9% 
10.5% 



98 

79 



31.5% 
8.5% 



311 
929 



450.2 
110.8 



102.0 
48.0 



District Totals 



931 



75.1% 



132 



10.6% 



177 



14.3% 



1,240 



195.9 



51.0 



District 19C 

Rowan 



1,082 



55 



4.5% 



82 



6.7% 



1,219 



43.0 



District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 



240 
480 
598 
386 
700 



77.9% 
82.8% 
82.4% 
67.7% 
86.2% 



20 
29 
32 
25 
44 



6.5% 
5.0% 
4.4% 
4.4% 
5.4% 



48 
71 
96 
159 
68 



15.6% 
12.2% 
13.2% 
27.9% 
8.4% 



308 
580 
726 
570 
812 



262.3 
185.1 
163.3 
522.3 
103.3 



38.0 
45.5 
45.0 
53.0 
38.0 



District Totals 2,404 



80.2% 



150 



5.0% 



442 



14.8% 



2,996 



229.7 



42.0 



District 21 

Forsyth 



2,653 84.1% 



204 



6.5% 298 

217 



9.4% 



3,155 



125.0 



56.0 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 





<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Disposed 


Age (Days) Age (Da 


District 22 




















Alexander 


240 


86.6% 


18 


6.5% 


19 


6.9% 


277 


85.0 


40.0 


Davidson 


1,105 


82.4% 


75 


5.6% 


161 


12.0% 


1,341 


160.0 


40.0 


Davie 


243 


91.0% 


18 


6.7% 


6 


2.2% 


267 


63.5 


37.0 


Iredell 


1,019 


81.8% 


93 


7.5% 


134 


10.8% 


1,246 


113.1 


39.0 


District Totals 


2,607 


83.3% 


204 


6.5% 


320 


10.2% 


3,131 


126.5 


40.0 


District 23 




















Alleghany 


91 


77.1% 


12 


10.2% 


15 


12.7% 


118 


144.6 


48.5 


Ashe 


177 


85.9% 


8 


3.9% 


21 


10.2% 


206 


118.5 


38.5 


Wilkes 


595 


92.0% 


45 


7.0% 


7 


1.1% 


647 


62.2 


39.0 


Yadkin 


227 


79.1% 


22 


7.7% 


38 


13.2% 


287 


130.4 


40.0 


District Totals 


1,090 


86.6% 


87 


6.9% 


81 


6.4% 


1,258 


94.7 


39.0 


District 24 




















Avery 


93 


83.8% 


11 


9.9% 


7 


6.3% 


111 


97.9 


43.0 


Madison 


121 


75.6% 


19 


11.9% 


20 


12.5% 


160 


139.4 


56.0 


Mitchell 


95 


81.2% 


13 


11.1% 


9 


7.7% 


117 


127.9 


74.0 


Watauga 


214 


73.5% 


39 


13.4% 


38 


13.1% 


291 


169.4 


66.0 


Yancey 


126 


88.1% 


7 


4.9% 


10 


7.0% 


143 


105.1 


63.0 


District Totals 


649 


79.0% 


89 


10.8% 


84 


10.2% 


822 


136.8 


61.0 


District 25 




















Burke 


776 


83.4% 


98 


10.5% 


57 


6.1% 


931 


94.1 


42.0 


Caldwell 


731 


85.5% 


45 


5.3% 


79 


9.2% 


855 


106.0 


39.0 


Catawba 


1,380 


83.4% 


137 


8.3% 


137 


8.3% 


1,654 


103.6 


47.0 


District Totals 


2,887 


83.9% 


280 


8.1% 


273 


7.9% 


3,440 


101.6 


43.0 


District 26 




















Mecklenburg 


4,940 


80.3% 


394 


6.4% 


815 


13.3% 


6,149 


143.5 


67.0 


District 27A 




















Gaston 


2,265 


84.7% 


152 


5.7% 


257 


9.6% 


2,674 


97.3 


37.0 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


1,454 


89.2% 


164 


10.1% 


12 


0.7% 


1,630 


73.4 


44.0 


Lincoln 


549 


87.8% 


67 


10.7% 


9 


1 .4% 


625 


75.3 


41.0 


District Totals 


2,003 


88.8% 


231 


10.2% 


21 


0.9% 


2,255 


73.9 


43.0 


District 28 




















Buncombe 


1,758 


78.2% 


263 


11.7% 


227 


10.1% 


2,248 


138.2 


52.0 



218 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 





<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Disposed 


Age (Days) Age (Da 


District 29 


















Henderson 


613 


80.0% 


■IS 


6.3% 


105 


13.7% 


766 


177.1 49.0 


McDowell 


364 


86.1% 


25 


5.9% 


34 


8.0% 


423 


110.5 52.0 


Polk 


86 


90.5% 


5 


5.3% 


4 


4.2% 


95 


72.8 43.0 


Rutherford 


607 


94.1% 


2 8 


4.3% 


10 


1.6% 


645 


55.4 42.0 


Transylvania 


225 


87.9% 


15 


5.9% 


16 


6.3% 


256 


116.2 40.5 



District Totals 1,895 



86.7% 



121 



5.5% 



169 



7.7% 



2,185 



116.6 



45.0 



District 30 




















Cherokee 


158 


81.4% 


21 


10.8% 


15 


7.7% 


194 


103.0 


42.0 


Clay 


38 


80.9% 


5 


10.6% 


4 


8.5% 


47 


114.6 


59.0 


Graham 


47 


87.0% 


7 


13.0% 





0.0% 


54 


83.4 


63.0 


Haywood 


504 


89.8% 


41 


7.3% 


16 


2.9% 


561 


74.2 


39.0 


Jackson 


198 


76.4% 


34 


13.1% 


27 


10.4% 


259 


163.6 


48.0 


Macon 


182 


85.0% 


15 


7.0% 


17 


7.9% 


214 


97.1 


41.0 


Swain 


81 


69.8% 


24 


20.7% 


11 


9.5% 


116 


133.1 


65.5 


District Totals 


1,208 


83.6% 


147 


10.2% 


90 


6.2% 


1,445 


103.9 


43.0 


State Totals 


66,417 


81.8% 


6,413 


7.9% 


8,365 


10.3% 


81,195 


135.9 


48.0 



219 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 



% 

33.3% 
59.0% 
28.4% 
54.3% 
75.0% 
48 42.5% 



3 

23 
29 

157 

12 



9-18 

3 

6 

8 
76 

2 



% 

33.3% 
15.4% 
7.8% 
26.3% 
12.5% 



19 



59.4% 



27 23.9% 
3 9.4% 



>18 

3 

10 
65 
56 

2 



% 

33.3% 
25.6% 
63.7% 
19.4% 

12.5% 



38 33.6% 



10 



31.3% 



Total 
Pending 

9 

39 
102 
289 

16 
113 

32 



Mean Median 
Age (Days) Age (Days) 



546.6 
435.5 
770.5 
324.0 
225.4 
437.9 
641.6 



481.0 
227.0 
769.0 
244.0 
72.5 
354.0 
181.0 



District Totals 



291 



48.5% 



125 



20.8% 



184 



30.7% 



600 



446.2 



282.0 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 
Washington 



75 
14 
24 
9 
59 



39.1% 
58.3% 
53.3% 
64.3% 

74.7% 



36 
4 

11 


10 



18.8% 
16.7% 
24.4% 
0.0% 
12.7% 



81 
6 

10 
5 

10 



42.2% 
25.0% 
22.2% 
35.7% 
12.7% 



192 

24 

45 
14 
79 



566.1 
446.8 
519.5 
334.7 
246.8 



429.5 
230.5 
177.0 
208.5 
123.0 



District Totals 



181 



51.1% 



61 



17.2% 



112 



31.6% 



354 



471.7 



260.5 



District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 



90 
178 

18 
289 



82.6% 
88.1% 
81.8% 
96.0% 



13 

15 

3 

11 



11.9% 
7.4% 

13.6% 
3.7% 



6 


5.5% 


109 


159.3 


82.0 


9 


4.5% 


202 


129.4 


62.0 


1 


4.5% 


22 


150.4 


73.5 


1 


0.3% 


301 


90.8 


68.0 



District Totals 



575 



90.7% 



42 



6.6% 



17 



2.7% 



634 



116.9 



68.5 



District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 



68 

18 

411 

102 



59.1% 
75.0% 
40.2% 
91.1% 



22 

1 

226 

5 



19.1% 
4.2% 

22.1% 
4.5% 



25 

5 

385 
5 



21.7% 

20.8% 

37.7% 

4.5% 



115 

24 

1,022 

112 



309.9 
263.0 
538.9 
129.5 



173.0 

126.0 

327.5 

60.5 



District Totals 



599 47.1% 



254 



20.0% 



420 



33.0% 



1,273 



477.0 



303.0 



District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 



770 72.7% 
70 59.3% 



202 
41 



19.1% 
34.7% 



87 
7 



8.2% 
5.9% 



1,059 
118 



202.9 
242.6 



131.0 
190.5 



District Totals 



840 



71.4% 



243 



20.6% 



94 



.0% 



1,177 



206.9 



135.0 



District 6A 

Halifax 



66 



91.7% 



8.3% 



0.0% 



72 



97.8 



57.0 



District 6B 

Bertie 
Hertford 

Northampton 



17 
43 
31 



60.7% 
71.7% 
63.3% 



7 
11 

10 



25.0% 
18.3% 

20.4% 



14.3% 
10.0% 
16.3% 



28 


265.2 


169.0 


60 


197.2 


95.5 


49 


268.5 


153.0 



District Totals 



')} 



66.4% 



28 



20.4% 



13.1% 



137 



236.6 



132.0 



220 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 



90 

216 

152 



% 

14.4% 
63.5% 
60.1% 



9-18 

21 

67 

35 



% 

17.4% 
19.7% 
13.8% 



>18 

10 

57 
66 



% 

8.3% 
16.8% 
26.1% 



Total Mean Median 

Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 



121 
340 
253 



208.5 
282.5 
373.3 



103.0 
137.5 
178.0 



District Totals 



458 



64.1% 



123 



17.2% 



133 



18.6% 



714 



302.1 



152.0 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



20 

154 
465 



64.5% 
85.1% 
70.3% 



6 

24 
150 



19.4% 
13.3% 

22.7% 



5 
3 

46 



16.1% 
1.7% 
7.0% 



31 
181 
661 



207.7 
144.5 
204.6 



69.0 
108.0 
150.0 



District Totals 



639 



73.2% 



180 



20.6% 



54 



6.2% 



873 



192.3 



136.0 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



123 
62 
59 

111 
21 



78.3% 
75.6% 
78.7% 
66.1% 
65.6% 



27 
16 

7 
28 

4 



17.2% 

19.5% 

9.3% 

16.7% 

12.5% 



7 
4 
9 

29 
7 



4.5% 

4.9% 

12.0% 

17.3% 

21.9% 



157 
82 

75 

168 

32 



161.8 
177.5 
200.7 
294.0 
291.2 



80.0 
120.5 
129.0 
150.0 
179.0 



District Totals 



376 



73.2% 



82 



16.0% 



56 



10.9% 



514 



221.2 



128.5 



District 10 

Wake 



3,257 



44.2% 



1,582 21.5% 2,524 



34.3% 



7,363 501.9 



346.0 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 



240 
236 

237 



74.5% 
89.4% 
90.5% 



82 
21 
19 



25.5% 
8.0% 
7.3% 






0.0% 


322 


162.7 


119.5 


7 


2.7% 


264 


141.7 


108.5 


6 


2.3% 


262 


130.4 


84.0 



District Totals 



713 



84.1% 



122 



14.4% 



13 



1.5% 



848 



146.2 



104.0 



District 12 

Cumberland 



575 95.5% 



25 



4.2% 



0.3% 



602 



100.0 



69.0 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 



102 
129 

125 



62.2% 
44.8% 
49.2% 



56 

72 
62 



34.1% 
25.0% 

24.4% 



6 
87 
67 



3.7% 
30.2% 
26.4% 



164 
288 

254 



224.2 
489.0 
346.7 



165.0 
312.0 
281.0 



District Totals 



356 



50.4% 



190 



26.9% 



160 



22.7% 



706 



376.3 



268.0 



District 14 

Durham 



793 



63.0% 



219 



17.4% 



247 



19.6% 



1,259 



303.7 



206.0 



District ISA 

Alamance 



471 



82.6% 



68 



11.9% 



31 



5.4% 



570 



151.3 



68.0 



221 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 





<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Pending 


Age (Days) Age (Da 


District 15B 




















Chatham 


48 


70.6% 


10 


14.7% 


10 


14.7% 


68 


219.8 


103.0 


Orange 


274 


59.3% 


93 


20.1% 


95 


20.6% 


462 


297.2 


160.0 


District Totals 


322 


60.8% 


103 


19.4% 


105 


19.8% 


530 


287.3 


156.0 


District 16A 




















Hoke 


26 


68.4% 


7 


18.4% 


5 


13.2% 


38 


246.3 


184.0 


Scotland 


94 


71.8% 


25 


19.1% 


12 


9.2% 


131 


251.7 


150.0 


District Totals 


120 


71.0% 


32 


18.9% 


17 


10.1% 


169 


250.5 


150.0 


District 16B 




















Robeson 


310 


36.3% 


252 


29.5% 


293 


34.3% 


855 


521.5 


382.0 


District 17A 




















Caswell 


17 


56.7% 


8 


26.7% 


5 


16.7% 


30 


269.8 


92.5 


Rockingham 


155 


86.6% 


22 


12.3% 


2 


1.1% 


179 


117.9 


65.0 


District Totals 


172 


82.3% 


30 


14.4% 


7 


3.3% 


209 


139.7 


65.0 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


33 


43.4% 


18 


23.7% 


25 


32.9% 


76 


411.2 


306.5 


Surry 


135 


84.9% 


14 


8.8% 


10 


6.3% 


159 


160.3 


73.0 


District Totals 


168 


71.5% 


32 


13.6% 


35 


14.9% 


235 


241.4 


118.0 


District 18 




















Guilford 


2,339 


47.2% 


1,187 


24.0% 


1,426 


28.8% 


4,952 


392.6 


289.5 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


231 


87.8% 


29 


11.0% 


3 


1.1% 


263 


137.3 


104.0 


District 19B 




















Montgomery 


60 


51.7% 


38 


32.8% 


18 


15.5% 


116 


395.7 


258.0 


Randolph 


146 


73.4% 


31 


15.6% 


22 


11.1% 


199 


221.8 


137.0 


District Totals 


206 


65.4% 


69 


21.9% 


40 


12.7% 


315 


285.8 


165.0 


District 19C 




















Rowan 


254 


66.8% 


114 


30.0% 


12 


3.2% 


380 


213.3 


185.0 


District 20 




















Anson 


46 


31.7% 


36 


24.8% 


63 


43.4% 


145 


545.6 


478.0 


Moore 


183 


47.7% 


82 


21.4% 


119 


31.0% 


384 


383.0 


303.0 


Richmond 


113 


48.1% 


64 


27.2% 


58 


24.7% 


235 


364.7 


296.0 


Stanly 


113 


53.1% 


37 


17.4% 


63 


29.6% 


213 


359.4 


254.0 


Union 


227 


49.2% 


131 


28.4% 


103 


22.3% 


461 


336.5 


272.0 


District Totals 


682 


47.4% 


350 


24.3% 


406 


28.2% 


1,438 


378.0 


298.0 


District 21 




















Forsyth 


1,250 


66.2% 


431 


22.8% 


208 


11.0% 


1,889 


240.1 


153.0 



222 



\GES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 

Ajifs of Pending Cases (Months) 



District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 



<<) 

-II 
208 

60 
272 



% 

91.7% 
54.3% 
47.2% 
82.9% 



9-18 

A 

73 
41 
45 



% 

8.3% 
19.1% 
32.3% 
13.7% 



>18 



102 

26 

11 



% 

0.0% 
26.6% 
20.5% 

3.4% 



Total Mean Median 

Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 



48 

383 

127 
328 



113.9 
328.7 
339.7 
156.8 



81.0 
222.0 
282.0 
102.5 



District Totals 



584 



65.9% 



163 



18.4% 



139 



15.7% 



886 



255.0 



149.5 



District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 



18 
24 

361 
68 



94.7% 
55.8% 
91.6% 
57.6% 



1 
14 
29 

23 



5.3% 
32.6% 

7.4% 
19.5% 




5 

4 
27 



0.0% 
11.6% 

1.0% 
22.9% 



19 

43 
394 
118 



114.6 

246.6 

90.5 

481.5 



88.0 
223.0 

46.0 
250.0 



District Totals 



471 



82.1% 



67 



11.7% 



36 



6.3% 



574 



183.4 



61.0 



District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



34 

10 
15 

111 
14 



47.2% 
41.7% 
53.6% 
61.7% 
73.7% 



24 
12 

7 
49 

3 



33.3% 
50.0% 
25.0% 

27.2% 
15.8% 



14 
2 
6 

20 
2 



19.4% 
8.3% 
21.4% 
11.1% 
10.5% 



72 
24 
28 
180 
19 



373.5 
249.8 
277.5 
243.5 
253.5 



285.5 
284.5 
251.5 
139.0 
86.0 



District Totals 



184 



57.0% 



95 



29.4% 



44 



13.6% 



323 



276.5 



202.0 



District 25 
Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 

District Totals 



207 
129 
296 



80.9% 
83.8% 
80.0% 



632 81.0% 



38 

17 
57 

112 



14.8% 
11.0% 
15.4% 

14.4% 



11 

8 

17 

36 



4.3% 
5.2% 
4.6% 

4.6% 



256 
154 
370 

780 



153.8 
169.5 
169.7 

164.4 



83.0 

114.0 

95.0 

97.0 



District 26 

Mecklenburg 



3,732 65.1% 



1,591 



27.8% 



409 



7.1% 



5,732 234.0 



185.5 



District 27A 
Gaston 



286 



89.4% 



23 



7.2% 



11 



3.4% 



320 



112.6 



58.0 



District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 



125 
73 



96.2% 
98.6% 



3.8% 
1.4% 






0.0% 


130 


102.5 


73.0 





0.0% 


74 


70.8 


59.5 



District Totals 



198 



97.1% 



0.0% 



204 



91.0 



68.0 



District 28 

Buncombe 



670 



77.9% 



157 



18.3% 



33 



860 



180.6 



131.0 



223 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 







Ages 


of Pendii 


lg Cases (Months) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Age (Day; 


District 29 




















Henderson 


145 


60.9% 


63 


26.5% 


30 


12.6% 


238 


288.5 


170.5 


McDowell 


60 


90.9% 


3 


4.5% 


3 


4.5% 


66 


132.4 


93.5 


Polk 


23 


62.2% 


10 


27.0% 


4 


10.8% 


37 


232.6 


131.0 


Rutherford 


93 


80.9% 


20 


17.4% 


2 


1.7% 


115 


149.4 


88.0 


Transylvania 


53 


75.7% 


12 


17.1% 


5 


7.1% 


70 


235.3 


130.5 


District Totals 


374 


71.1% 


108 


20.5% 


44 


8.4% 


526 


227.5 


123.0 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


35 


94.6% 


2 


5.4% 





0.0% 


37 


105.9 


65.0 


Clay 


17 


94.4% 





0.0% 


1 


5.6% 


18 


136.3 


67.0 


Graham 


20 


87.0% 


1 


4.3% 


2 


8.7% 


23 


163.7 


60.0 


Haywood 


142 


65.1% 


23 


10.6% 


53 


24.3% 


218 


429.7 


123.0 


Jackson 


78 


69.0% 


27 


23.9% 


8 


7.1% 


113 


206.0 


173.0 


Macon 


49 


50.5% 


12 


12.4% 


36 


37.1% 


97 


582.2 


257.0 


Swain 


17 


89.5% 


2 


10.5% 





0.0% 


19 


120.5 


111.0 


District Totals 


358 


68.2% 


67 


12.8% 


100 


19.0% 


525 


354.0 


131.0 


State Totals 


23,824 , 


60.1% 


8,368 


21.1% 


7,469 


18.8% 


39,661 


322.5 


193.0 



224 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991 







Ages 


of Disposed Cases (Months) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 




<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 1 




















Camden 


10 


71.4% 


2 


14.3% 


2 


14.3% 


14 


305.9 


212.5 


Chowan 


39 


72.2% 


12 


22.2% 


3 


5.6% 


54 


205.6 


108.0 


Currituck 


63 


70.8% 


22 


24.7% 


4 


4.5% 


89 


174.2 


82.0 


Dare 


238 


81.0% 


35 


11.9% 


21 


7.1% 


294 


169.0 


82.0 


Gates 


10 


76.9% 


1 


7.7% 


2 


15.4% 


13 


180.9 


96.0 


Pasquotank 


113 


75.8% 


18 


12.1% 


18 


12.1% 


149 


195.7 


77.0 


Perquimans 


25 


78.1% 


3 


9.4% 


4 


12.5% 


32 


202.8 


119.5 


District Totals 


498 


77.2% 


93 


14.4% 


54 


8.4% 


645 


183.9 


84.0 


District 2 




















Beaufort 


139 


79.9% 


18 


10.3% 


17 


9.8% 


174 


247.3 


92.0 


Hyde 


18 


62.1% 


5 


17.2% 


6 


20.7% 


29 


395.8 


211.0 


Martin 


69 


83.1% 


9 


10.8% 


5 


6.0% 


83 


178.3 


74.0 


Tyrrell 


15 


71.4% 


1 


4.8% 


5 


23.8% 


21 


199.5 


63.0 


Washington 


61 


83.6% 


6 


8.2% 


6 


8.2% 


73 


152.2 


70.0 


District Totals 


302 


79.5% 


39 


10.3% 


39 


10.3% 


380 


222.6 


84.5 


District 3 




















Carteret 


303 


89.6% 


29 


8.6% 


6 


1.8% 


338 


133.3 


96.0 


Craven 


601 


91.5% 


41 


6.2% 


15 


2.3% 


657 


13012 


91.0 


Pamlico 


51 


98.1% 


1 


1.9% 





0.0% 


52 


120.1 


102.0 


Pitt 


804 


94.7% 


41 


4.8% 


4 


0.5% 


849 


116.1 


97.0 


District Totals 


1,759 


92.8% 


112 


5.9% 


25 


1.3% 


1,896 


124.2 


95.0 


District 4 




















Duplin 


116 


65.5% 


49 


27.7% 


12 


6.8% 


177 


243.6 


130.0 


Jones 


31 


77.5% 


4 


10.0% 


5 


12.5% 


40 


347.8 


96.0 


Onslow 


474 


64.1% 


134 


18.1% 


131 


17.7% 


739 


274.3 


130.0 


Sampson 


278 


89.7% 


30 


9.7% 


2 


0.6% 


310 


119.9 


71.0 


District Totals 


899 


71.0% 


217 


17.1% 


150 


11.8% 


1,266 


234.5 


107.0 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


1.250 


69.2% 


377 


20.9% 


179 


9.9% 


1,806 


215.8 


117.0 


Pender 


123 


74.5% 


28 


17.0% 


14 


8.5% 


165 


221.8 


125.0 


District Totals 


1,373 


69.7% 


405 


20.5% 


193 


9.8% 


1,971 


216.3 


117.0 


District 6A 




















Halifax 


195 


85.9% 


28 


12.3% 


4 


1.8% 


227 


149.9 


93.0 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


48 


58.5% 


18 


22.0% 


16 


19.5% 


82 


297.5 


169.5 


Hertford 


79 


80.6% 


17 


17.3% 


2 


2.0% 


98 


158.2 


79.0 


Northampton 


41 


70.7% 


7 


12.1% 


10 


17.2% 


58 


261.5 


133.5 


District Totals 


168 


70.6% 


42 


17.6% 


28 


11.8% 


238 


231.4 


101. -0 



225 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 





<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Disposed 


Age (Days) Age (Days) 


District 7 




















Edgecombe 


251 


77.0% 


45 


13.8% 


30 


9.2% 


326 


194.8 


95.0 


Nash 


501 


77.2% 


99 


15.3% 


49 


7.6% 


649 


191.7 


82.0 


Wilson 


328 


74.0% 


60 


13.5% 


55 


12.4% 


443 


222.6 


104.0 


District Totals 


1,080 


76.2% 


204 


14.4% 


134 


9.4% 


1,418 


202.1 


91.0 


District 8 




















Greene 


40 


76.9% 


8 


15.4% 


4 


7.7% 


52 


169.5 


59.0 


Lenoir 


337 


72.5% 


103 


22.2% 


25 


5.4% 


465 


187.0 


105.0 


Wayne 


600 


53.6% 


412 


36.8% 


107 


9.6% 


1,119 


274.7 


209.0 


District Totals 


977 


59.7% 


523 


32.0% 


136 


8.3% 


1,636 


246.4 


149.5 


District 9 




















Franklin 


122 


77.7% 


25 


15.9% 


10 


6.4% 


157 


181.1 


102.0 


Granville 


109 


78.4% 


25 


18.0% 


5 


3.6% 


139 


172.4 


108.0 


Person 


113 


89.0% 


12 


9.4% 


2 


1.6% 


127 


130.2 


81.0 


Vance 


218 


76.2% 


51 


17.8% 


17 


5.9% 


286 


197.3 


120.0 


Warren 


60 


72.3% 


11 


13.3% 


12 


14.5% 


83 


256.5 


119.0 


District Totals 


622 


78.5% 


124 


15.7% 


46 


5.8% 


792 


185.2 


108.0 


District 10 


















I 


Wake 


4,689 


78.9% 


830 


14.0% 


421 


7.1% 


5,940 


194.4 


109.0 


District 11 




















Harnett 


389 


60.5% 


235 


36.5% 


19 


3.0% 


643 


222.5 


161.0 


Johnston 


557 


69.0% 


212 


26.3% 


38 


4.7% 


807 


200.9 


145.0 


Lee 


647 


73.9% 


170 


19.4% 


59 


6.7% 


876 


178.6 


96.0 


District Totals 


1,593 


68.5% 


617 


26.5% 


116 


5.0% 


2,326 


198.5 


119.0 


District 12 


















■ 


Cumberland 


1,756 


91.4% 


150 


7.8% 


16 


0.8% 


1,922 


125.5 


94.0 


District 13 




















Bladen 


312 


83.9% 


48 


12.9% 


12 


3.2% 


372 


124.0 


58.0 


Brunswick 


314 


63.3% 


40 


8.1% 


142 


28.6% 


496 


348.6 


139.0 


Columbus 


249 


56.2% 


65 


14.7% 


129 


29.1% 


443 


350.3 


180.0 


District Totals 


875 


66.7% 


153 


11.7% 


283 


21.6% 


1,311 


285.5 


97.0 


District 14 




















Durham 


1,424 


71.7% 


466 


23.5% 


95 


4.8% 


1,985 


198.7 


126.0 


District ISA 




















Alamance 


772 


67.7% 


202 


17.7% 


167 


14.6% 


1,141 


235.8 


118.0 



226 



\GES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 





<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>1«S 


% 


Disposed 


Age (Days) Age (Da 


District 15B 




















Chatham 


103 


71.0% 


36 


24.8% 


6 


4.1% 


145 


191.3 


107.0 


Orange 


370 


70.7% 


74 


14.1% 


79 


15.1% 


523 


251.2 


148.0 


District Totals 


473 


70.8% 


110 


16.5% 


85 


12.7% 


668 


238.2 


145.0 


District 16 A 




















Hoke 


90 


81.1% 


17 


15.3% 


4 


3.6% 


111 


152.6 


66.0 


Scotland 


181 


71.0% 


52 


20.4% 


22 


8.6% 


255 


209.7 


102.0 


District Totals 


271 


74.0% 


69 


18.9% 


26 


7.1% 


366 


192.3 


97.0 


District 16B 




















Robeson 


686 


87.9% 


66 


8.5% 


28 


3.6% 


780 


129.3 


62.0 


District 17A 




















Caswell 


43 


76.8% 


8 


14.3% 


5 


8.9% 


56 


218.3 


98.5 


Rockingham 


523 


91.6% 


45 


7.9% 


3 


0.5% 


571 


120.6 


80.0 


District Totals 


566 


90.3% 


53 


8.5% 


8 


1.3% 


627 


129.3 


81.0 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


65 


66.3% 


15 


15.3% 


18 


18.4% 


98 


257.7 


119.5 


Surry 


346 


72.4% 


56 


11.7% 


76 


15.9% 


478 


249.4 


93.5 


District Totals 


411 


71.4% 


71 


12.3% 


94 


16.3% 


576 


250.8 


97.0 


District 18 




















Guilford 


3,545 


64.6% 


485 


8.8% 


1,455 


26.5% 


5,485 


379.0 


115.0 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


804 


82.4% 


144 


14.8% 


28 


2.9% 


976 


135.6 


67.0 


District 19B 




















Montgomery 


157 


52.5% 


12 


4.0% 


130 


43.5% 


299 


658.9 


241.0 


Randolph 


455 


84.4% 


68 


12.6% 


16 


3.0% 


539 


137.5 


78.0 


District Totals 


612 


73.0% 


80 


9.5% 


146 


17.4% 


838 


323.5 


102.0 


District 19C 




















Rowan 


532 


70.1% 


188 


24.8% 


39 


5.1% 


759 


195.7 


101.0 


District 20 




















Anson 


71 


56.3% 


7 


5.6% 


48 


38.1% 


126 


658.0 


160.5 


Moore 


246 


63.2% 


42 


10.8% 


101 


26.0% 


389 


332.4 


146.0 


Richmond 


183 


63.5% 


44 


15.3% 


61 


21.2% 


288 


302.8 


129.5 


Stanly 


303 


50.8% 


20 


3.4% 


273 


45.8% 


596 


995.6 


239.5 


Union 


305 


64.6% 


33 


7.0% 


134 


28.4% 


472 


321.6 


119.5 



District Totals 1,108 



59.2% 



146 



l.i 



617 



33.0% 



1,871 



558.3 



154.0 



District 21 

Forsyth 



3,105 



82.8% 



393 



10.5% 



251 



6.7% 3,749 



176.5 



98.Q 



227 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 



<9 

67 
506 

87 
713 



% 

78.8% 
78.1% 
81.3% 
71.4% 



9-18 

17 

44 

14 

189 



% 

20.0% 

6.8% 

13.1% 

18.9% 



>18 

1 
98 

6 
96 



% 

1.2% 

15.1% 

5.6% 

9.6% 



Total Mean Median 

Disposed Age (Days) Age (Days) 



85 
648 
107 
998 



151.7 
230.6 
164.5 
198.9 



111.0 
79.5 
85.0 
90.0 



District Totals 1,373 



74.7% 



264 



14.4% 



201 



10.9% 



1,838 



205.9 



85.0 



District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 



48 

91 

902 

123 



87.3% 
91.0% 
92.0% 
66.5% 



3 

6 

61 

29 



5.5% 

6.0% 

6.2% 

15.7% 



4 

3 

17 

33 



7.3% 

3.0% 

1.7% 

17.8% 



55 
100 
980 
185 



178.4 
121.3 
118.0 
291.1 



91.0 

72.0 

76.0 

105.0 



District Totals 1,164 



88.2% 



99 



57 



4.3% 



1,320 



145.0 



80.5 



District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



101 
28 
92 

215 
36 



83.5% 
71.8% 
75.4% 
72.1% 
81.8% 



17 
8 

18 

72 

5 



14.0% 
20.5% 
14.8% 
24.2% 
11.4% 



3 
3 

12 

11 

3 



2.5% 
7.7% 
9.8% 
3.7% 
6.8% 



121 

39 

122 

298 

44 



156.1 
193.4 
186.1 
202.2 
177.2 



105.0 
104.0 
87.5 
153.0 
101.0 



District Totals 



472 



75.6% 



120 



19.2% 



32 



5.1% 



624 



187.8 



128.0 



District 25 

Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 



650 
404 
950 



87.5% 
85.8% 
80.2% 



61 

51 

171 



8.2% 
10.8% 
14.4% 



32 
16 
63 



4.3% 
3.4% 
5.3% 



743 

471 

1,184 



131.5 
148.6 
168.2 



61.0 
88.0 
98.0 



District Totals 2,004 



83.6% 



283 



ll.i 



111 



4.6% 



2,398 



152.9 



84.0 



District 26 

Mecklenburg 



6,384 



65.6% 



2,561 



26.3% 



792 



8.1% 9,737 



229.6 



145.0 



District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 



1,150 

442 
244 

686 



85.8% 



90.9% 
94.9% 

92.3% 



159 



43 
13 

56 



11.9% 

8.8% 
5.1% 

7.5% 



32 



2.4% 



0.2% 
0.0% 

0.1% 



1,341 



486 
257 

743 



139.8 



126.6 
110.5 

121.0 



88.0 



95.5 
79.0 

85.0 






District 28 

Buncombe 



1,232 



80.8% 



235 



15.4% 



57 



3.7% 



1,524 



172.7 



116.0 



228 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



Total 



Mean 



Median 





<9 


l 'r 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Disposed 


Age (Days) Age (Da 


District 29 




















Henderson 


358 


76.8% 


65 


13.9% 


43 


9.2% 


466 


222.2 


133.5 


McDowell 


179 


89.9% 


17 


8.5% 


3 


1.5% 


199 


123.4 


80.0 


Polk 


38 


80.9% 


5 


10.6% 


4 


8.5% 


47 


173.2 


93.0 


Rutherford 


239 


85.4% 


33 


11.8% 


8 


2.9% 


280 


136.2 


82.5 


Transylvania 


113 


85.6% 


13 


9.8% 


6 


4.5% 


132 


165.0 


109.5 


District Totals 


927 


82.5% 


133 


11.8% 


64 


5.7% 


1,124 


174.5 


97.5 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


138 


90.8% 


7 


4.6% 


7 


4.6% 


152 


123.1 


68.0 


Clay 


60 


93.8% 


3 


4.7% 


1 


1.6% 


64 


114.5 


72.0 


Graham 


40 


85.1% 


5 


10.6% 


2 


4.3% 


47 


159.5 


85.0 


Haywood 


250 


81.7% 


40 


13.1% 


16 


5.2% 


306 


181.3 


99.0 


Jackson 


141 


82.0% 


25 


14.5% 


6 


3.5% 


172 


155.8 


106.5 


Macon 


87 


79.1% 


11 


10.0% 


12 


10.9% 


110 


186.6 


93.5 


Swain 


46 


83.6% 


5 


9.1% 


4 


7.3% 


55 


168.2 


105.0 


District Totals 


762 


84.1% 


96 


10.6% 


48 


5.3% 


906 


160.7 


92.0 


State Totals 


47,249 


74.6% 


10,016 


15.8% 


6,079 


9.6% 


63,344 


221.8 


108.0 



229 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 



District 1 

Cain den 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 

District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 



July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



ings 


Dispositions 


111 


119 


393 


418 


260 


265 


582 


603 


170 


174 


890 


901 


216 


257 



2,622 



1,550 
102 
833 
124 
381 

2,990 



1,512 

2,286 

296 

3,517 



2,737 



1,481 
106 
818 
182 
426 

3,013 



1,505 

2,360 

312 

3,568 



District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 

District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 

District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 

District 10 

Wake 



Filings Dispositions 



7,431 
6,399 
5,145 

18,975 



321 
2,196 
3,686 

6,203 



1,222 
1,595 
1,110 
3,883 
1,217 

9,027 



18,531 



7,434 
6,268 
5,159 

18,861 



317 
2,162 
3,643 

6,122 



1,253 
1,657 
1,078 
3,773 
1,239 

9,000 



18,070 



District Totals 

District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 



7,611 



1,338 

213 

4,535 

1,407 

7,493 



7,745 



1,371 

193 

4,323 

1,436 

7,323 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 

District 12 

Cumberland 



1,865 
2,679 
1,318 

5,862 



10,660 



1,895 
2,700 
1,272 

5,867 



10,782 



District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6A 

Halifax 

District 6B 

Bertie 
Hertford 

Northampton 

District Totals 



6,102 
688 

6,790 



1,468 



552 
543 
535 

1,630 



6,133 
691 

6,824 



1,508 



564 
572 
549 

1,685 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 

District 14 

Durham 

District 15A 

Alamance 

District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 



2,459 
1,247 
1,538 

5,244 



16,420 



3,389 



803 
2,065 

2,868 



2,429 
1,242 
1,509 

5,180 



16,305 



3,233 



821 
2,012 

2,833 



230 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 





Filings 


Dispositions 




Filings 


Dispositions 


District 16A 






District 22 






Hoke 


751 


739 


Alexander 


549 


537 


Scotland 


1,742 


1,794 


Davidson 


3,484 


3,327 








Davie 


579 


556 


District Totals 


2,493 


2,533 


Iredell 


3,482 


3,604 


District 161$ 






District Totals 


8,094 


8,024 


Robeson 


4,685 


4,621 


District 23 






District 17A 






Alleghany 


211 


166 


Caswell 


472 


470 


Ashe 


466 


409 


Rockingham 


3,167 


3,199 


Wilkes 


2,381 


1,837 








Yadkin 


559 


536 


District Totals 


3,639 


3,669 














District Totals 


3,617 


2,948 


District 17B 












Stokes 


685 


725 


District 24 






Surry 


1,852 


1,849 


Avery 


309 


278 








Madison 


193 


190 


District Totals 


2,537 


2,574 


Mitchell 


391 


435 








Watauga 


740 


753 


District 18 






Yancey 


350 


359 


Guilford 


17,724 


18,321 














District Totals 


1,983 


2,015 


District 19A 












Cabarrus 


2,889 


3,270 


District 25 












Burke 


2,151 


2,159 


District 19B 






Caldwell 


2,032 


2,111 


Montgomery 


1,035 


1,258 


Catawba 


3,223 


3,309 


Randolph 


2,014 


2,012 














District Totals 


7,406 


7,579 


District Totals 


3,049 


3,270 


District 26 






District 19C 






Mecklenburg 


38,745 


37,414 


Rowan 


3,343 


3,278 


District 27A 






District 20 






Gaston 


5,284 


5,460 


Anson 


841 


866 








Moore 


1,495 


1,498 


District 27B 






Richmond 


1,870 


2,026 


Cleveland 


3,820 


3,820 


Stanly 


1,169 


1,161 


Lincoln 


1,481 


1,511 


Union 


2,704 


2,759 














District Totals 


5,301 


5,331 


District Totals 


8,079 


8,310 


District 28 






District 21 






Buncombe 


4,288 


4,367 


Forsyth 


21,038 


21,040 









231 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 







July 


1, 1990 - 


- June 30, 1991 








Filings 


Dispositions 




Filings 


Dispositions 


District 29 








District 30 






Henderson 


1,213 




1,190 


Cherokee 


328 


349 


McDowell 


1,012 




992 


Clay 


91 


91 


Polk 


287 




254 


Graham 


78 


69 


Rutherford 


2,230 




2,331 


Haywood 


800 


807 


Transylvania 


459 




472 


Jackson 
Macon 


307 
337 


310 
326 


District Totals 


5,201 




5.239 


Swain 

District Totals 
State Totals 


90 

2,031 

279,209 


82 

2,034 

278,385 






232 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



Delinquent 



July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS 

Undisciplined 



Other Misde- 



Parental 



Children 
Before 



Rights Grand Court for 



Capital Felony meanor Total Truancy Other Total Dependent Neglected Abused Petitions Total First Time 



strict 1 


















mdcn 





1 


2 


3 














owan 





1 


20 


21 











2 


rrituck 





4 


20 


24 














re 








57 


57 





4 


4 





tes 





11 


4 


15 














squotank 





32 


84 


116 





1 


1 


10 


rquimans 








4 


4 





1 


1 


5 


District Totals 





40 


191 


240 





6 


6 


17 


strict 2 


















aufort 





23 


59 


82 


3 


2 


5 


11 


-de 








9 


9 











4 


irtin 





20 


35 


55 


1 


1 


2 


12 


rrell 





4 


9 


13 














ashington 





3 


16 


19 











3 


District Totals 





50 


128 


178 


4 


3 


7 


30 


strict 3 


















irteret 





58 


99 


157 


1 


12 


13 


12 


aven 





91 


220 


311 


1 


19 


20 


20 


mlico 





4 


3 


7 














tt 





179 


184 


363 


4 





4 


37 


District Totals 





332 


506 


838 


6 


31 


37 


69 


strict 4 


















iplin 





20 


32 


52 





7 


7 


4 


nes 





2 


2 


4 











4 


islow 





132 


297 


429 


15 


11 


26 


36 


mpson 





7 


20 


27 





2 


2 





District Totals 





161 


351 


512 


15 


20 


35 


44 


strict 5 


















:w Hanover 





417 


463 


880 





73 


73 


5 


nder 





34 


27 


61 





6 


6 


21 


District Totals 





451 


490 


941 





79 


79 


26 


strict 6A 


















alifax 





88 


125 


213 





5 


5 


2 












3 


2 











23 


13 


8 


3 


2 


37 


26 


10 


11 


6 


88 


90 








1 


16 


7 


20 


9 


5 


161 


82 


5 





1 


16 


14 



43 



36 



88 



70 



56 

24 

80 



23 



14 



25 



IS 



15 



13 



25 



41 



28 
1 

29 



344 



278 



1,082 



720 

1,042 
122 

1,164 
228 



234 



23 


8 


5 


134 


67 


4 


2 


5 


24 


9 


8 


3 


1 


81 


4Q 





1 





14 


8 


1 





2 


25 


9 



142 



19 


4 


7 


212 


70 


34 


13 


9 


407 


107 


4 





1 


12 


12 


31 


8 


8 


451 


177 



375 



4 


4 


2 


73 


38 


6 


2 


3 


19 


13 


44 


11 


26 


572 


176 


16 


1 


10 


56 


49 



276 

282 
63 

345 

84 



233 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



Delinquent 



July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS 
Undisciplined 



Parental 

Other Misde- Rights 

Capita] Felony meanor Total Truancy Other Total Dependent Neglected Abused Petitions 



Children 
Before 
Grand Court for 
Total First Time 



District 6B 

Bertie 

Hertford 

Northampton 

District Totals 



2 

32 

25 
59 



54 
58 

11 



56 
90 
36 



123 182 





4 

7 

11 



56 
100 

52 

208 



40 
52 
48 

140 



District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 



75 

73 

106 

254 



189 264 

142 215 

207 314 

538 793 




41 
iO 

51 




42 
11 

53 



10 
34 

27 

71 



103 
38 

26 

167 



25 
13 
21 

59 



7 

4 

10 

21 



409 
346 
409 

1,164 



212 
135 
151 

498 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 



6 

48 
50 

104 



11 17 

129 177 

125 175 

265 369 



1 2 

6 8 

48 52 

55 62 



3 

19 
50 

72 












22 


24 


52 


4 


10 


270 


176 


72 


10 


16 


375 


135 



124 



14 



26 



667 



335 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



17 
31 
19 
43 
4 



37 
41 
83 
67 
13 



54 

72 

102 

110 

17 



16 
3 

14 
21 
10 



18 
6 
15 
22 
13 



2 
6 
6 
7 
10 



23 


7 


3 


107 


69 


4 


5 


4 


97 


49 


12 


4 


11 


150 


43 


12 


1 


3 


155 


78 


15 


9 





64 


22 



District Totals 



114 



241 355 



10 



64 74 



31 



66 



26 



21 



573 



261 



District 10 

Wake 



440 



603 1,043 



16 



196 212 



54 



32 



46 



1,475 



508 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 



48 

29 

38 

115 



66 114 

88 117 

158 196 

312 427 



3 6 
7 13 

4 4 

14 23 



9 

1 

25 

35 



26 


8 


8 


171 


102 


16 


6 


8 


161 


96 


18 


5 


2 


250 


87 


60 


19 


18 


582 


285 



District 12 

Cumberland 



643 1,055 1,701 



429 430 



168 



175 



71 



36 



2,581 



756 



District 13 
Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 

District Totals 



21 

23 

7 

51 



17 

77 
44 



38 

101 

51 



138 190 



1 2 

7 7 

10 13 

18 22 



17 
22 
11 

50 



15 


9 


1 


82 


65 


41 


5 


12 


188 


107 


40 


4 


5 


124 


91 



96 



18 



394 



263 



234 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS Children 

Undisciplined Parental Before 

Other Misde- Rights Grand Court for 

Capital Felony meanor Total Truancy Other Total Dependent Neglected Abused Petitions Total First Time 



Delinquent 



strict 14 



lrham 


2 


195 


173 


370 


2 


77 


79 


67 


strict 15A 


















amance 





211 


184 


395 


8 


159 


167 


22 


strict 15B 


















latham 





8 


31 


39 











21 


ange 





68 


06 


164 





6 


6 


12 


District Totals 





76 


127 


203 





6 


6 


33 


strict 16A 


















ake 





28 


54 


82 


7 





7 


14 


:otland 





100 


120 


220 


1 


5 


6 


2 


District Totals 





128 


174 


302 


S 


5 


13 


16 


(strict 16B 


















)beson 


1 


273 


263 


537 


42 


109 


151 


18 


istrict 17A 


















aswell 





2 


21 


23 


1 


4 


5 





ockingham 





122 


133 


255 


3 


25 


28 


14 


District Totals 





124 


154 


278 


4 


29 


33 


14 


istrict 17B 


















okes 





55 


59 


114 





11 


11 


19 


any 





56 


44 


100 





12 


12 


1 


District Totals 





111 


103 


214 





23 


23 


20 


istrict 18 


















uilford 


6 


493 


715 


1,214 


70 


179 


249 


138 


istrict 19A 


















abarms 





76 


82 


158 


8 


31 


39 


6 


istrict 19B 


















Montgomery 





33 


36 


69 


2 


5 


7 


4 


andolph 





115 


243 


358 


16 


109 


125 


25 


District Totals 





148 


279 


427 


18 


114 


132 


29 


istrict 19C 


















owan 





107 


193 


300 


14 


133 


147 


19 



57 



30 



33 



11 
15 

26 



16 



21 
12 

33 



141 



24 



46 



24 



20 



18 



37 



10 



15 



35 



13 



34 



70 



10 



21 



27 



628 



636 



327 



115 
251 

366 



352 



172 
130 

302 



1,849 



247 



670 



519 



212 



154 



19 


11 


7 


07 


46 


14 


7 


27 


230 


115 



161 



50 
122 

181 



89 


45 


6 


846 


232 


4 


4 


2 


38 


21 


12 


2 


3 


314 


84 



107 



61 

35 

06 



639 



139 



5 








85 


26 


41 


15 


21 


585 


200 



226 



177 



235 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS 

Delinquent Undisciplined 



3 

23 17 

33 13 

18 4 

69 19 

146 53 







Other 


Misde- 














Capita! 


Felony 


meanor 


Total 


Truancy 


Other Total D< 


■pende 


District 20 


















Anson 





1 


25 


26 





1 


1 





Moore 





36 


57 


93 





2 


2 


12 


Richmond 





07 


115 


212 





6 


6 


7 


Stanly 





17 


91 


108 





2 


2 


5 


Union 


2 


102 


89 


193 


3 


36 


39 


56 


District Totals 


2 


253 


377 


632 


3 


47 


50 


80 


District 21 


















Forsyth 





378 


488 


866 





268 


268 


88 


District 22 


















Alexander 





5 


16 


21 


1 


9 


10 


9 


Davidson 





116 


169 


285 


3 


44 


47 


44 


Davie 





12 


44 


56 


5 


8 


13 


5 


Iredell 





91 


91 


182 


4 


73 


77 


9 


District Totals 





224 


320 


544 


13 


134 


147 


67 


District 23 


















Alleghany 





4 


22 


26 


4 


6 


10 


9 


Ashe 





20 


41 


61 


8 


3 


11 


2 


Wilkes 





64 


195 


259 


37 


52 


89 


58 


Yadkin 





22 


177 


199 


12 


39 


51 


25 


District Totals 





110 


435 


545 


61 


100 


161 


94 


District 24 


















Avery 





16 


31 


47 


55 


8 


63 


2 


Madison 





7 


11 


18 


7 


20 


27 


14 


Mitchell 





7 


13 


20 


13 


5 


18 


2 


Watauga 





53 


41 


94 


1 


23 


24 


4 


Yancey 





1 


6 


7 


12 


12 


24 


7 


District Totals 





84 


102 


186 


88 


68 


156 


29 


District 25 


















Burke 





22 


53 


75 


17 


34 


51 


42 


Caldwell 





62 


47 


109 


13 


42 


55 


32 


Catawba 





145 


173 


318 


8 


64 


72 


45 


District Totals 





229 


273 


502 


38 


140 


178 


119 


District 26 


















Mecklenburg 





827 


1,724 


2,551 


6 


392 


398 


38 


District 27A 


















Gaston 





323 


247 


570 


2 


141 


143 


40 



164 



191 



53 



129 



159 



84 



Parental 
Rights 



1 

10 

1 

4 
7 



Children 
Before 
Grand Court for 



52 



44 



28 



62 



36 



29 



23 



79 



21 



49 



78 



25 



31 
157 
272 
141 
383 

984 



1,053 



1,056 



461 



1,041 



19 
88 
97 
61 
156 

421 



11 


12 


47 


1,392 


513 


11 


10 


6 


67 


64 


74 


20 


42 


512 


240 


8 


6 


3 


91 


44 


71 


16 


28 


383 


213 



561 



8 


12 


2 


67 


30 


7 


5 





86 


27 


92 


15 


12 


525 


152 


84 


12 


7 


378 


81 



290 



12 


2 


3 


129 


53 


22 


18 





99 


49 


3 


3 





46 


29 


5 


3 


6 


136 


55 


11 


2 





51 


31 



217 



37 


12 


12 


229 


126 


34 


20 


21 


271 


175 


58 


30 


16 


541 


250 



551 



3,260 973 



891 



297 



236 



Mstrict 27B 

Hcveland 
incoln 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



Delinquent 



July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS 

Undisciplined 



Other Misde- 



Parental 
Rights 



Children 
Before 
Crand Court for 



Capital Felony meanor Total Truancy Other Total Dependent Neglected Abused Petitions Total First Time 



66 

78 



71 
34 



137 
112 



12 
1 



10 
10 



22 
11 



10 
13 



103 
29 



22 
9 



298 
176 



186 
88 



District Totals 



144 



105 249 



13 



20 33 



23 



132 



31 



474 



274 



Jistrict 28 

luncombe 



89 



154 243 



39 



138 177 



100 



107 



56 



22 



705 



318 



Mstrict 29 

lenderson 

McDowell 

'oik 

Rutherford 

ransylvania 



11 

29 

1 

45 
14 



53 

29 

8 
49 
35 



64 
59 
9 
94 
49 



11 

14 

3 

19 

2 



16 

52 

4 

16 

2 



27 
66 

7 
35 

4 



7 
30 


25 

4 



13 


8 


18 


137 


98 


20 


5 


10 


190 


65 


1 





1 


18 


15 


67 


3 


23 


247 


95 


13 





6 


76 


33 



District Totals 



100 



174 275 



49 



90 139 



66 



114 



16 



58 



668 



306 



)istrict 30 

Jherokee 

:iay 

3raham 

laywood 

ackson 

vlacon 

Jwain 



3 

3 

13 

12 

14 





2 

3 

76 

46 

14 

4 

6 



5 

3 
79 
59 
26 
18 

6 



7 
2 
6 
3 

11 
2 
2 





1 

4 

61 

11 

8 

15 



7 
3 

10 
64 
22 
10 
17 



10 
1 
1 

18 
3 

12 
4 



11 

2 
2 
12 
5 
9 
9 



36 
9 
92 
164 
66 
53 
41 



29 

9 

99 

80 
62 
44 
41 



District Totals 



>tate Totals 



45 



151 196 



33 



100 133 



49 



17 7,659 12,063 19,739 595 3,477 4,072 1,847 



50 
3,067 



937 



25 



461 364 



984 30,646 11,911 



237 



— C 

S " 

— *< 



3 



co r- ■* -*j- 



cc 


O rf Q CM co 


Ox 


CM 


co — i O — i •>T 


ON 


co 


r— < .—I 


CM 



SO ^ V) CO 

o r^ cm no 
cm co n-> 



oo r^ co 


,-h 


ON 


H « t 


NO 


00 


■-i >n 




r~ 



y: 



r- 
< 



z 


v: 




> 


OtS 


Cv 


p 


c 


cr 


£• 


u 




/— v 


'— 


D 




u 


c 
a 



cc 



Z ir § 



% W ~ 

S £ f 

> Z 

2£ ^ 



< 





c 






■r 


E 

u 


01 


4> 






« 


o 


— 


z 


M 




* - 


"3 


C 


V 


1/ 




U 


eg 


W 


e 


— 






E 




L. 




OJ 




:- 



tu. -a 



C - 

c 



OO — OOOO ^h 



O O O — — ■ "3- O 



O O O — i o — < o 



O O CO O O CO O 



O O O O O CM o 



O O O O O On </0 

CM i-H 



o o o o o o o 



o cm cm o o r~ co 



O O O tJ- O <-i © 



« VI h ^O -i VI 






OOOOOO-h -h 



O no co O O 



o 



O O O O — ' *-< 



CM CO ^h o CO 



CM -h o O O 



no o r- o o 



o o o o ^h 



O O 0\ O CO 
CM 



CM O co O O 



oo O Os © CM 



— i o cm o o 



TJ- O -h o o 



V") r-t OO <— I 



oo a (<i rt \o 
no in ^h cm 



CM ^h O O 



oo on i— i r~- 



o no o o 



TJ- CO O CM 



CM CO O 00 



00 o 

CM 



cm -rr o on 



o\ U\ O f 
CM 



CO CO O NO 



r- oo o cm 



^r CO O Os 

v-t r- ^-i o\ 



CM 



NO 
CO 
CM 



O O CM Tt 



NO CM OO HO ^ 



^ O CM O 



t « H -H 
rH CM 



CM CM ^H O 



o\ r- r- no 

N N t rt 



CO CM CM O 



f- 1/0 >0 O 
CM CM 



CM O CM O 



-^ O CM CM 



« ^ « t 



r- 



0\ 



3 


,— I 


no xo 


r- 


■>* CO >i-) 


ON 


, — 1 


^r 


oo 


co 


"t O 


CI 


DO 


i — i 


CN 


rO 


r~ 


CO 




CO 



a sc 



66 



§ .§ 



DOfcfc 



o 














o 












o 












o 


H 












c 
o 

60 

a 
2 


H 












H 












H 


5 


CM 

u 

1/1 

5 


iS 
u 


U 

X 




1J 

t 


'S 


Q 


u 

M 

u 


a 
u 

> 




3 
1 


£ 


B 

Q 


u 

■J-, 

s 


a. 

Q 


a 
o 


i 
o 


c 

o 

c^ 

E 

CO 

co 


u 

s 



238 



5 




rsi 


0\ 


*-< 
e 


n 


a 


CM 


H 


i* 

i 







r- 


m 


in 


oo 


OC 


r~ 


T 


in 


-O 


co m 


ro 


^- 


o> 


OC 


t 


T 


o 


n 


f— I 


. — « 


r - 


^ r-~ 


C i 


■ — ' 










CO 


CO 


to 


T 


O 


CN 


T 


t 



C/3 

H 
H 
H 



H 

z 

> 

o 

- 

O 

z 

< 

as 

o 

H 
<* 

U 

Q 
Q 



c/3 
H 

O 

u 
u 

X 
r- 

Q 

w 

H 
Z 






o 

B 
3 



O 



S 



5 



'u 

X 



Z 



■o 



a 



T3 
C 

'-) 
Eft 
M 
c 



u 

3 

C 
1 



at 



— i o — ' 



IN 



o tj- r- >-i 



r-c co r- ^H 



— 1 O -H 



r- 



,-( o — i 



O co tT 



i> co oo 



o 


^r 


OC 


rj 


O K") CN 


t> 


kC 


CO 


ri 


CN 


>/-> in 


o 



0\ 



© ol co 



PI H H 



TT O 


« 


o 


O 


cn r- 


o 


^H CO 


OJ 


r- 




— ■ co 


■<J 



r- 



— I O -H 



O -H O — 



co cs o 

N « -^ 



s 








11 








c 




CT 


cj 






MO 


MO 


"3 




*o 




V 








cs 




1- 
u 

> 






in 




g 








r3 






_o 


I 


o 






* 


C 






CJ 


o 




5 


z 


fi 



^h r-~ cN 
■q- a n 



o 

MO 



O O -h 



VO OO T* 

r-~ vo -<t 



CO VO TJ- 

vo co r- 

^ h N 



53 














rd 


— 1 
















O 












c 


o 


H 


< 




PQ 






o 


H 


u 


s© 




M5 






a, 


d 

s 


'5 


_^ 


X 


U 




T3 


e 

C3 


v. 


- n 




C 


u 


«£ 


■5 


^ 


s 


j: 


".=: 


09 


u. 


u! 


Q 






n 




u 


u 


o 






5 


- 


5 


ca 


X 


Z 





u o 
T <-> 



CO 

in 



2 

a 
:- 

o 

■fi 



N N VI O 



h N N 
CO oo 



a oo n O 

■-" i— ( CO 



5 3 z ^ 



a q 



O 4> w (U 

5 8 o £ 

1A 1) C c3 

5 o J3 ^ 



c 



s 

S 



239 



si 

X 



oc o 
VO OO 



to 


^r 


VO 


o oo 


O 


^r 


m 


O >n 


CO 


en 


■*t 


CM ^H 



vo 
en 



o r» t 


,— ( 


m r-- vo 


Q\ 


^H ^H CM 


IT) 



VO 

m 

en 



en 
r- 

vo 



w 

H 
H 
< 



2 

> 
c 

Z 

Ptj 
< 

= 


< 

u 

— 

Q 

-; 

Q 
< 



-J 
C 

U 

H 
U 

5 

^ © 

5 9 
x $ 
z 





io 


— > 




_c 


E 




L. 

gg 

01 


■J-. 

5 




X 






8 


01 




3 


# c 




-C 


'?5 




< 


OC 

■o 

11 




\r. 


1 


^™ 


S£ 




Cs 


c 


E 


Sv 


'u 


x 


— 


id 


5 


© 


I 




r*i 


u 


01 


0) 


_v 


c 


c 


M 

0J 


a 


s 

— ! ! 


Y- 


11 
OS 



M 


-o 




1 


SS 




Oi 


E 


I 


H 


>. 


Q 


U 




c 




01 


•a 


3 


01 


cr< 


e 



a: 



O — — i o o 



N O ^ 



O 



O O U-) ^h O 



O ■— i e» O en 
CM m 



*fr o «-< Tf o 



en ^ oo On m 
>n vo 



o o -^ -<r — i 



O CM VO 00 f- 
tJ- CM 



cm Tt oo cm en 



VO 

r- 



o 

C4 



^ " n ■<> >c 



3 



n h it Ji m 
n n m n 



9\ 

— c — 



u 



*gt a 



d 
■— Ti > g u u 

2 1 1 § I S 

Q ffi O ft > £ 



r- ^i -h 



CM V) .-H 

-3- 



oo t t 



oo 



in 

O 



en 



vo 



CM 



O 



m 



cm vo O 



*-* <m en 

—i CM 



"* 


O ON 


en 


r» 


in 


CM 


CO 00 


^r 


*t 


en 



CM ^h -^ 



VO 


>n © Tf 


On 


OO 


^r >n ON 


OO 


OO 


r- 


^r 


vo -h 


r~ 


o 


CM —i CM 


VO 


U-) 


CM 



0\ 

CM 



O 



en >/-> i— i 



o 



o> 



o 

en 



O ^r VO 



VO 


* K1 fl 
■^ CM r-H 


CM 


co 


^h en vo 


o 


in 


CM 


■sr 


00 


U-) 


CM cm m 


CO 


VO 


co 


^H 






VO 











tn 


O 


ri o 


o 


ID 


r \ 


in 


o r- 


in 





o 

f- 






■s 

£ 





r- 


VO 


r^ 


o 




^r 




CM 


m 


ON 


VO 




o 




f* 


CM 


o 


•— 1 




t*« 




^r 


CO 


in 


oo 




^r 










3 

o 




co 










3 

o 










a 
o 

o 




H 
u 




1 


rn 




M 
u 


i>5 


H 


■>* 




"C 

S 




It 

$ 


'5 

a 


'■J 

5 


a 
5 


4-* 

5 


d 
•o 

s 


in 

a 

e 

CO 


1 




B 

on 

Q 


5 


E 

CO 

■fi 

a 



< 

s a 

i a 



240 





M 








c 






71 




Ci 


r 1 




c 


00 


u-1 


e 


7i 




CN 


H 









vri cm 


r- 


T 


O r-> 


— c Os 


o 


ri 


-<r r- 


^h CM 


T 


oo 


cs 



•~o 


O 


ts 


T 


-T 


Zt. 


T 


1 1 






n 


r* 



a 



C/3 






T3 


H 






— 

E 


a* 


3S 


5JC 


3 


Q\ 


L. 


OB 


o 


i-H 




5 




© 


I 




W 


ro 


o 




H 

r ) 


e 


— 
or 


c 


w 


3 


z 


5 


►■^ 


»-9 


Q£ 


as 


i 






H 


i 

O 




1 


c/5 


CV 


u 


is 


NH 


Ov 


^ 


E 


Q 


*■* 


X 


2 

Q 


u 


»H 


>> 




a 


>« 


c 


■a 


H 


3 


"O 

c 
at 


5 


Z 




a. 


0) 



2 



u 



3 

or c 



o — I —i 



— c — CM 



<-< cs 



o 
so 



O rr 



o o 



o 



_4 O — ' 



~ ~ CM 



rj 



>o so — i 



rJ 



o so 



sO 



O <-> ^H 



fl H Tt 



O —I -« 



On fH 



Tf O 



o 
c-i 



On 



O TT 



ON 



O CM 



■g o cm 



o 



so 
so 





-o 


o 


5 




ON 


-3- 


m 




PO 




ri 


^r 




in 


r- 


pr| 




oo 








M 

3 








2 




>* 








o 


< 

SO 






o 

r- 


SO 




_2 


S 


u 




l-H 




T3 

1 


'5 




e 
o 


L. 


■s 


ao 


c/j 


"u 


4) 


Gfl 


'u 


c/5 


5 


2 3 


S 


at 


M 

o 
X 


1 

00 


5 


a> 

5 


O 

a: 



SO 



O — ■ — ' 

CM On — I 

rH CM 



SO SO ^h 



SO 



oo o 

OO SO 



< 




E 

C3 


o 


u 


u 

5 


-Si 

1 


u 

'5 


t^ 


</> 


CJ 


5 




CJ 


o 




Q 


O 


QJ 





aa 



5 JS b 

« 2 § 

Q oo oo 



OO 



O 

s- 



'J0 
so 

r- 



2 1 

a a 



< 

9\ 



1 1 

3 -S 

Q U 



241 



- 
< 



- 

Z 

> 

— : 

c 

r 



< 

= 

C 
- 
< 

— 

Q 

— . 



"3 

c 

u 

H 
U 



e 

B 

a 



t/3 

E 

X 
H 



i— ov 



3 

— : 



— c 
5 ~ 

6- ± 

— 





-a 




9i 


iff 


y 


M 




11 


5 


= 




01 


"O 


^ - 


U 


a 


B 


x: 


eg 


< 


aj 






HI *- 

Z <2 



X 



C 



MJ 


T3 






c 


CJ 






u 


3 


■<r r- 


,_, 


« 


**"" 


co so 


O 


'•i 


E 


•—i 


r i 



£ 



in cm 

_ so 



CM O 
CM 



CM CN 



■C O 

r- cm 
cm 



PQ 



u 



If 



m, 3 



2 | § 

a 2 os 



o 
in 



O — -H 



M 


T3 






_c 




« co 


T 


u 


y 


cm 


cs 


1/ 


6 






= 


[/] 






1= 


5 






u 








B 










T3 






a 


V 






"G 


*~ 


r-- oo 


U", 



8 

e » 



3 

o 

r- 

s 



On 



O r~ O CM m -rf 

•q in so CO oo [-- 

<— I — I r- 1 co oo 



O co tj- o i-H 



(S 


^h in 


O so 


On 


00 CM 


—i On 


co 


■«* 


—1 "3- 



O O IT) CO 



cm co cm —" 



^H in O CO 



■-H in O SO 



so 



O — i O — i <tf so 

— < ^h in t— 



h rn in ^t n m 

^h CM 



to 



r- 



1 



r- 
co 

n 



O — i O CM r* 

CO 



S© CM Tt cm >n 

-^ cm in 



8! 



t-i ^h on in r- m 

en o\ so On en <n 

—i ^r 



g: 



u 



Q OS 



a < 



•a 

a 
O 

K 6 >> a 
° -S d .2 

2 2 oo D 



242 



o 
H 
o 

"S 



>n cm tt r- 
tt CM 



oo 



o so o r- ro 



ON 
CO 



SO CM -^t SO 



^r r- r^ ^r 

so m 



CM OO On ON 



r4 



H 



5 5 

-w 'Si 

in i-h 

5 £ 



a 

o 



5 < Q Q J3 






Q 



QJ i — • 



Q < < £ Jh 



o cm so o\ r~ 

f- O oo oo CO 

•^r co o 



o o o o o ' 



ft O — r~ On. 



r- o o cm o\ 



OOnOO^h oo incococo ^r 

■-H CM ^ CM i-H Tf 



>-h r^ in ^r m 



O O CO CM On 



o r^ CM O CO CM 



O O 00 i-< CM 
CM 



^H CO r- rH On 
CM CM CO 



so o^coor^- rn cm ^hOOcm cm r^ocMTj- co 

rH |-C CM i-H ^H 



O n t nT -h 

CM CO 



r^ 


•n *h 


-h On 


~D 


r~ i— i oo On 


in 


o 


^h in 


•— i CO 


*—• 


H ^ « 


On 


' — i 




CM 


ro 


i— < 


rH 



^-hcosoco co cMCMr-co Tt 

•-H co cm r~ so CM 



O so 


l-H 00 


■3- 


^h in 


Tf in 


r~ 




^H ^-1 


CO 



C/3 

at 

w 

H 
H 

< 



z 

> 

p 

c 

b 

z 

I— I 
X 

< 

X 



< 

U 

i— i 

Q 

P 

— a 

Q 
< 



CO 

H 
X 
P 

o 
u 

H 

u 

H 

h— I 

x 

H 
Z 



3V 



O 
B 



O 
5v 



3 


M 


OC 


3 


CN 


IT) 


ri 


1 — . 


£S k. 


CN 


m 


ri 


>/"> 


VO 


O C9 


CI 










SO 


H « 














S 
















-o 
















G 
































gg 
















c 
















E 

u 


O 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


i2 














on 


CD 

;- 






























« 


o 














~s 


z 














c 


-o 














o> 
















u 


<3 














OJ 


c 


r^i 


o 


.— < 


43 


© 


o 


C 


'i 
C 

(V 

H 

1 














1A 


CN 


CO 


o 


,_, 


cn 


OC 


Ci 
















_c 


E 
















Q 














I 
















3! 


13 

s 














3 


c 


CO 


« 


CO 


O 


o 


CN 


A 


a 












■"■* 


< 


aj 















o 


r- 


CO 


c> 


e'- 


O 


CO 


o 


en 


ri 


ir, 


ri 



O 

so 



s 



O On 


g 


•— oo 


5 


CO 


CO 



B 
'u 

SI 



■a 

C 



Q. 
] 

"3 

a 
-j 

ir. 
it 
c 
'Z. 
et 

HI 



a 
oi 

c 
1 






SO SO CN 
co CN 



o 



o 
CN 



3 



so io o o rr 



oo r- r- ^h oo 

SO 



Oi 



VI so O 

r~ cs ^r 



N n h 



o v> 



Oi CN ^h 



so r-- 



SO 
CN 



IT) 


r- 


I-H >0 O 


OC 


CO CN 


co 


oc 


CO 


CN 


CN 




■■H 


■*t 


so co 


co 


CN 


ri 


cn 



O On 



E 

5 


oo 
cn 


o 


t> O -H 


SO 


SO 00 
CN CO 


"3- 


oo 
O 
t— < 


CM 


SO 
CO 


■o 

Ol 

c 

a 




















CN 

O 


~ 


t « Oi 


cn 


CO TJ- 


"3- 


IT) 

in 


cn 
CO 


sC 



sC 
SO 



cn 

o 



CN >/-> 


r~ 


■c 


CN 


CN 


Ol 





OC 


sO — — < 


^3- 


g 


r^ 


^H 


^^ 


Oi 


CO 


O 


oo 


00 


SO 


£ 


»— 1 


^H — 1 tt 




cs 


CO 


-* 


Oi 


CN 


CO 


r- 




OC 














^-« 


. — 1 


o_ 










■S) 
























































a 




























■o 




























« 




























c 


^^ 


— r- cn 


CO 


■5T 


Oi 


r- 


rj 


oc 


o. 


CN 


,_< 


r~ 


OC 


"3 


oo 


-H «0 




in 


•■c 


r-~ 


in 


o 


ri 


Ol 


o 


■^r 


n- 








^^ 






■ — ' 


rj 


CN 


CO 








w 


















i — i 










ac 





























c 
o 

> 

< 



1_ ^^ — 







3 


























C3 








o 

r- 


m 








o 
H 


se 


00 
3 


< 




aa 






C 

;- 


OC 


Mitchell 
Watauga 


>> 

>• 


"S 

J*. 

Q 


(N 

'u 

a 


u 

CQ 


U 


u 


o 

'5 

Q 


(N 

*-» 

09 

5 


X> 
C 

u 

2 


(N 

la 

5 


c 
o 

O 


<N 

c 

■r. 

5 


1 

> 

U 




3 

c 


Q 


5 



u 

XI 

s 

c 
-J 
c 

CO 



243 



el 

SI 

S « 



so r~- O* &< — ' 

co oc r-t — i oo 
— r-, co 



cn 
r- 



so On tfi CN co cn ^h 
co Os so r- CN -^ 



SO 
CO 



o 

so 
SO 

o" 

CO 



fa 
- 

< 



-J 

C H 

fa U 





z 

— 

< 
fa 



- 
< 

u 

— 

- 

— . 






O 

c 

9 



c* : 

H © 

I— I as 

fa '-^ 

x ^ 



a 



_c 


E 




x 

5 


— 

41 


■o 


•■/- 


11 


a 


c 






< 


■— > 

4> 




« 






3 



it -a 



u 



CN *h O O O 



t Tf r-. oo \o 



— I CN O O O 



■f CN O CN O 



O in O — CN 



OS TJ- CN SO O 

•H ON CN 



O 00 O i-l , <f 



O CO O Tf O 

— CN SO r- 1 



V> — I Tf (— CN 



Tj- r- CN CO O 



so O so 
oo co 



9 
IS 


c 


u 


u 




? 




u 
■a 

e 
u 

I 


2 


5 





CO O O 13 - — I O "* 



o 



O O O co r- — ' — i 



O O O 00 r-H O O 



O O O r-i o O O 



O O On ^h tN >0 



O CN O so «* ^h rj- 



O O O oo — < co co 



O ■— i O 00 CN CN — < 



£ 



sO 



IT) 



3 

o 
H 
u 
£ 



SO CN -^ i— On rr CN 



O O OO CO CN i— i Tj- 



O 3 l-i 

Oh OS H 



o 

CO y 



•o 



p § 



35 £ 3 2 «yJ2 £ 



§ .9 
id o S3 



CN 



2 3 



OO 

cn 



CN 



o 
H 
o 

'£ 



0O 



oo 

CN 



O 



OS 



o 
o 
o 



On 


r^ i-H CO CN O CN U-l 


t 


CN 


CI 


W> — I 


r~ 


On 



o 

CO 



cn 
CO 

so 



i-H 00 



2 
o 
H 



CO 



244 



TRENDS IN FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS OF INFRACTION AND 
CRIMINAL CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1981-82 -- 1990-91 




Motor Vehicle and 
Infraction 



Dispositions 



Filings 



Dispositions 



Non-Motor Vehicle 



1,800,000 



1,200,000 



Number 

of 

Cases 



600,000 



11-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 



Infraction cases are included with criminal motor vehicle 
cases here to show a meaningful trend before and after 
1986, when the infraction case category was first created. 
Almost all infractions would have been criminal motor 
vehicle cases before September 1, 1986. Motor vehicle 
misdemeanor and infraction case filings together de- 
creased for the first time since 1981-82; filings of these 



cases decreased by 1.8%, from 1,166,325 in 1989-90 to 
1,145,702 in 1990-91. Dispositions of these cases in- 
creased by 1.2%, to a total of 1,147,659 in 1990-91. 
Filings and dispositions of criminal non-motor vehicle 
cases have increased every year since 1983-84, with 
increases in 1990-91 of 1.2% in filings, and 3.2% in 
dispositions. 



245 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 

DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Dispositions 



Filed 



District 1 




Camden 


510 


Chowan 


775 


Currituck 


997 


Dare 


3,844 


Gates 


538 


Pasquotank 


1,875 


Perquimans 


677 


District Totals 


9,216 


District 2 




Beaufort 


3,234 


Hyde 


362 


Martin 


1,547 


Tyrrell 


624 


Washington 


773 


District Totals 


6,540 


District 3 




Carteret 


4,967 


Craven 


5,272 


Pamlico 


332 


Pitt 


8,720 


District Totals 


19,291 


District 4 




Duplin 


3,071 


Jones 


380 


Onslow 


6,949 


Sampson 


4,433 


District Totals 


14,833 


District 5 




New Hanover 


8,692 


Pender 


2,185 


District Totals 


10,877 


District 6A 




Halifax 


3,676 


District 6B 




Bertie 


1,227 


Hertford 


1,819 


M orthampton 


1,177 


District Totals 


4,223 



Waiver 

135 
230 
243 
1,452 
105 
368 
166 

2,699 



667 

74 
369 
214 
210 

1,534 



1,112 

910 

47 

1,105 

3,174 



622 

73 

1,464 

1,103 

3,262 



1,440 
502 

1,942 



854 



238 
393 
174 

805 



3ther 


Total 


Dispositions 


321 




456 


506 




736 


669 




912 


2,389 




3,841 


425 




530 


1,292 




1,660 


402 




568 



6,004 



2,459 
302 

1,089 
391 
548 

4,789 



3,911 

4,404 

290 

7,682 

16,287 



2,008 

338 

5,203 

3,195 

10,744 



7,034 
1,616 

8,650 



2,780 



818 

1,348 

912 

3,078 



8,703 



3,126 
376 

1,458 
605 
758 

6,323 



5,023 

5,314 

337 

8,787 

19,461 



2,630 

411 

6,667 

4,298 

14,006 



8,474 
2,118 

10,592 



3,634 



1,056 
1,741 
1,086 

3,883 



246 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 

DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 





Filed 




Dispositions 






Waiver 


Other 


Total Dispositions 


District 7 










Edgecombe 


4,768 


1,457 


3,016 


4,473 


Nash 


6,069 


2,023 


3,808 


5,831 


Wilson 


4,769 


1,453 


2,745 


4,198 


District Totals 


15,606 


4,933 


9,569 


14,502 


District 8 










Greene 


802 


167 


695 


862 


Lenoir 


5,214 


900 


4,197 


5,097 


Wayne 


6,584 


1,412 


3,993 


5,405 


District Totals 


12,600 


2,479 


8,885 


11,364 


District 9 










Franklin 


2,431 


425 


1,983 


2,408 


Granville 


2,516 


544 


1,949 


2,493 


Person 


2,138 


378 


1,725 


2,103 


Vance 


3,540 


506 


2,827 


3,333 


Warren 


840 


127 


654 


781 


District Totals 


11,465 


1,980 


9,138 


11,118 


District 10 










Wake 


40,961 


6,195 


39,843 


46,038 


District 11 










Harnett 


5,698 


749 


4,306 


5,055 


Johnston 


6,579 


874 


5,169 


6,043 


Lee 


4,549 


823 


3,712 


4,535 


District Totals 


16,826 


2,446 


13,187 


15,633 


District 12 










Cumberland 


19,212 


2,683 


16,559 


19,242 


District 13 










Bladen 


3,104 


658 


2,386 


3,044 


Brunswick 


3,721 


422 


3,142 


3,564 


Columbus 


3,790 


427 


3,116 


3,543 


District Totals 


10,615 


1,507 


8,644 


10,151 


District 14 










Durham 


12,603 


2,294 


9,257 


11,551 


District 15A 










Alamance 


9,036 


1,870 


7,083 


8,953 



247 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 

DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Dispositions 



Filed Waiver Other Total Dispositions 



District 15B 




Chatham 


3,152 


Orange 


4,884 


District Totals 


8,036 


District 16A 




Hoke 


2,333 


Scotland 


2,745 


District Totals 


5,078 


District 16B 




Robeson 


7,865 


District 17A 




Caswell 


919 


Rockingham 


5,392 


District Totals 


6,311 


District 17B 




Stokes 


2,228 


Surry 


4,345 


District Totals 


6,573 


District 18 




Guilford 


29,702 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 


6,927 


District 19B 




Montgomery 


2,651 


Randolph 


7,310 


District Totals 


9,961 


District 19C 




Rowan 


6,430 


District 20 




Anson 


1,745 


Moore 


5,052 


Richmond 


2,703 


Stanly 


3,035 


Union 


5,371 


District Totals 


17,906 



587 2,313 2,900 

881 4,075 4,956 

1,468 6,388 7,856 



488 1,760 2,248 

566 1,982 2,548 

1,054 3,742 4,796 



1,234 7,962 9,196 



142 835 977 

928 4,415 5,343 

1,070 5,250 6,320 



445 1,717 2,162 

898 3,154 4,052 

1,343 4,871 6,214 



3,783 25,229 29,012 



1,485 5,137 6,622 



368 2,390 2,758 

1,234 5,766 7,000 

1,602 8,156 9,758 



1,373 5,671 7,044 



302 1,187 1,489 

893 3,936 4,829 

430 2,054 2,484 

574 2,257 2,831 

926 4,190 5,116 

3,125 13,624 16,749 



248 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 

DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Dispositions 



District 21 




Forsyth 


23,121 


District 22 




Alexander 


1,099 


Davidson 


7,453 


Davie 


1,831 


Iredell 


7,786 


District Totals 


18,169 


District 23 




Alleghany 


508 


Ashe 


841 


Wilkes 


3,549 


Yadkin 


1,933 


District Totals 


6,831 


District 24 




Avery 


1,218 


Madison 


1,281 


Mitchell 


820 


Watauga 


2,318 


Yancey 


952 


District Totals 


6,589 


District 25 




Burke 


4,810 


Caldwell 


4,621 


Catawba 


7,042 


District Totals 


16,473 


District 26 




Mecklenburg 


47,939 


District 27A 




Gaston 


13,960 


District 27B 




Cleveland 


5,198 


Lincoln 


2,354 


District Totals 


7,552 


District 28 




Buncombe 


10,722 



Filed Waiver 

3,893 



176 
1,155 

373 
1,793 



[)ther 


Total Dispositions 


9,437 


23,330 


791 


967 


6,299 


7,454 


1,362 


1,735 


5,430 


7,223 



3,497 13,882 17,379 



125 375 500 

213 593 806 

736 2,446 3,182 

497 1,332 1,829 

1,571 4,746 6,317 



284 819 1,103 

360 893 1,253 

222 619 841 

686 1,696 2,382 

336 642 978 

1,888 4,669 6,557 



1,122 3,586 4,708 

810 3,945 4,755 

1,242 5,787 7,029 

3,174 13,318 16,492 



12,785 33.254 46,039 



1,814 12,573 14,387 



1,155 4,188 5,343 

384 2,106 2,490 

1,539 6,294 7,833 



3,372 6,896 10,268 



249 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Dispositions 



District 29 




Henderson 


4,783 


McDowell 


1,846 


Polk 


621 


Rutherford 


4,019 


Transylvania 


1,369 


District Totals 


12,638 


District 30 




Cherokee 


941 


Clay 


330 


Graham 


417 


Haywood 


2,344 


Jackson 


1,374 


Macon 


1,376 


Swain 


829 


District Totals 


7,611 


State Totals 


493,974 



Filed Waiver 



812 
575 
128 
999 
374 



Dther 


Total Dispositions 


3,782 


4,594 


1,150 


1,725 


488 


616 


2,758 


3,757 


981 


1,355 



2,888 9,159 12,047 

227 656 883 
54 257 311 

124 307 431 

370 1,787 2,157 

254 1,132 1,386 

285 1,152 1,437 

228 609 837 

1,542 5,900 7,442 

96,157 390,655 486,812 



250 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 



Begin 
Pending 

7/1/90 



31 
140 
112 
663 

43 
251 

72 



IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 





Total 


ed 


Caseload 


185 


216 


1,122 


1,262 


802 


914 


3,147 


3,810 


302 


345 


3,234 


3,485 


455 


527 







End 




% Caseload 


Pending 


osed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


204 


94.4% 


12 


1,066 


84.5% 


196 


781 


85.4% 


133 


3,240 


85.0% 


570 


318 


92.2% 


27 


3,059 


87.8% 


426 


454 


86.1% 


73 



District Totals 



1,312 



9,247 



10,559 



9,122 



86.4% 



1,437 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 



251 
56 

173 
15 
53 



3,750 
511 

1,882 
333 
965 



4,001 
567 

2,055 
348 

1,018 



3,652 
512 

1,844 
315 
956 



91.3% 
90.3% 
89.7% 
90.5% 
93.9% 



349 
55 

211 
33 

62 



District Totals 



548 



7,441 



7,989 



7,279 



91.1% 



710 



District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 



1,514 

1,674 

103 

2,472 



6,430 

8,374 

885 

16,558 



7,944 

10,048 

988 

19,030 



6,451 

8,202 

866 

15,648 



81.2% 
81.6% 
87.7% 
82.2% 



1,493 

1,846 

122 

3,382 



District Totals 



5,763 



32,247 



38,010 



31,167 



82.0% 



6,843 



District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 



500 

95 

2,246 

565 



3,111 

645 

12,881 

3,842 



3,611 

740 

15,127 

4,407 



3,023 

671 

12,543 

3,812 



83.7% 
90.7% 
82.9% 
86.5% 



588 

69 

2,584 

595 



District Totals 



3,406 



20,479 



23,885 



20,049 



83.9% 



3,836 



District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 



3,561 
333 



15,613 
2,148 



19,174 
2,481 



15,818 
2,154 



82.5% 
86.8% 



3,356 
327 



District Totals 



3,894 



17,761 



21,655 



17,972 



83.0% 



3,683 



District 6A 

Halifax 



734 



6,515 



7,249 



6,141 



84.7% 



1,108 



District 6B 

Bertie 

Hertford 

Northampton 

District Totals 



169 
253 
189 

611 



1,490 
2,353 
1,703 

5,546 



1,659 
2,606 
1,892 

6,157 



1,495 
2,337 
1,732 

5,564 



90.1% 
89.7% 
91.5% 

90.4% 



164 
269 
160 

593 



251 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/90 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/91 

1,794 7,782 9,576 7,682 80.2% 1,894 

2,801 10,452 13,253 10,657 80.4% 2,596 

2,626 8,362 10,988 7,972 72.6% 3,016 



District 7 
Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wilson 



District Totals 



7,221 



26,596 



33,817 



26,311 



77.8% 



7,506 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



107 
1,272 
1,960 



925 1,032 

6,885 8,157 

8,652 10,612 



868 


84.1% 


164 


6,524 


80.0% 


1,633 


8,515 


80.2% 


2,097 



District Totals 



3,339 



16,462 



19,801 



15,907 



80.3% 



3,894 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



513 
415 
414 
784 
193 



2,947 
3,181 
2,705 
5,375 
1,280 



3,460 
3,596 
3,119 
6,159 

1,473 



3,073 
3,200 
2,611 
5,508 
1,282 



89.0% 
83.7% 
89.4% 
87.0% 



387 
396 
508 
651 
191 



District Totals 



2,319 



15,488 



17,807 



15,674 



88.0% 



2,133 



District 10 

Wake 



10,415 



38,708 



49,123 



37,459 



76.3% 



11,664 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 



1,080 

1,062 

700 



6,290 
7,561 
6,163 



7,370 
8,623 
6,863 



6,355 
7,360 
6,039 



86.2% 
85.4% 



1,015 

1,263 

824 



District Totals 



2,842 



20,014 



22,856 



19,754 



86.4% 



3,102 



District 12 

Cumberland 



5,536 



23,251 



28,787 



22,673 



78.8% 



6,114 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 



597 
548 
562 



3,443 
4,340 
4,308 



4,040 
4,888 
4,870 



3,507 
4,193 
4,329 



86.8% 
85.8% 
88.9% 



533 
695 
541 



District Totals 



1,707 



12,091 



13,798 



12,029 



87.2% 



1,769 



District 14 

Durham 



5,901 



17,694 



23,595 



18,745 



79.4% 



4,850 



District 15A 

Alamance 



1,439 



9,862 



11,301 



9,792 



86.6% 



1,509 



252 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 



Begin 
Pending 

7/1/90 

337 
866 



Filed 



2,541 
5,703 



Total 
Caseload 

2,878 
6,569 







End 




% Caseload 


Pending 


osed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


2,509 


87.2% 


369 


5,584 


85.0% 


985 



District Totals 



1,203 



8,244 



9,447 



8,093 



85.7% 



1,354 



District 16A 

Hoke 

Scotland 



414 
655 



2,543 
4,982 



2,957 
5,637 



2,512 
4,941 



85.0% 
87.7% 



445 
696 



District Totals 



1,069 



7,525 



8,594 



7,453 



86.7% 



1,141 



District 16B 

Robeson 



1,671 



14,219 



15,890 



13,543 



85.2% 



2,347 



District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 



132 
826 



984 
6,832 



1,116 
7,658 



1,034 
6,721 



92.7% 
87.8% 



82 
937 



District Totals 



958 



7,816 



8,774 



7,755 



88.4% 



1,019 



District 17B 

Stokes 
Surry 



305 

743 



2,319 
5,172 



2,624 
5,915 



2,212 
4,950 



84.3% 
83.7% 



412 
965 



District Totals 



1,048 



7,491 



8,539 



7,162 



83.9% 



1,377 



District 18 

Guilford 



19,153 



40,990 



60,143 



41,138 



68.4% 



19,005 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 



1,025 



7,540 



8,565 



7,669 



89.5% 



896 



District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 



429 
1,550 



2,968 
6,557 



3,397 
8,107 



2.860 
6,609 



84.2% 
81.5% 



537 
1,498 



District Totals 



1,979 



9,525 



11,504 



9,469 



82.3% 



2,035 



District 19C 

Rowan 



998 



6,815 



7,813 



6,852 



87.7% 



961 



District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 



291 
901 
652 
379 
821 



2,621 
5,271 
4,784 
2,959 
6,317 



2,912 
6,172 
5,436 
3,338 
7,138 



2,560 
5,587 
4,819 
2,987 
6,486 



87.9% 
90.5% 
88.6% 
89.5% 
90.9% 



352 
585 
617 
351 
652 



District Totals 



3,044 



21,952 



24,996 



22,439 



89.8% 



2,557 



253 






CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



District 21 

Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 



Begin 
Pending 

7/1/90 

2,984 



379 
1,675 

293 
1,514 

3,861 



Filed 

27,926 



2,183 

12,360 

1,407 

9,614 

25,564 



Total 
Caseload 

30,910 



2,562 
14,035 

1,700 
11,128 

29,425 



Disposed 

27,672 



2,192 

12,411 

1,406 

9,583 

25,592 



% Caseload 
Disposed 

89.5% 



85.6% 
88.4% 
82.7% 
86.1% 

87.0% 



End 
Pending 
6/30/91 

3,238 



370 
1,624 

294 
1,545 

3,833 



District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 



73 
125 
809 
126 



582 
1,206 
4,485 
1,244 



655 
1,331 
5,294 
1,370 



509 
1,220 
4,451 
1,242 



77.7% 
91.7% 
84.1% 
90.7% 



146 
111 
843 
128 



District Totals 



1,133 



7,517 



8,650 



7,422 



85.8% 



1,228 



District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 

District Totals 



306 
249 
138 
452 
175 

1,320 



1,154 
928 
515 

2,786 
535 

5,918 



1,460 
1,177 

653 
3,238 

710 

7,238 



1,157 
939 
516 

2,840 
607 

6,059 



79.2% 
79.8% 
79.0% 
87.7% 
85.5% 

83.7% 



303 
238 
137 
398 
103 

1,179 



District 25 
Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 

District Totals 



742 

860 

1,611 

3,213 



5,310 
4,824 
9,256 

19,390 



6,052 

5,684 

10,867 

22,603 



5,334 
5,113 
9,558 

20,005 



88.1% 
90.0% 
88.0% 

88.5% 



718 

571 

1,309 

2,598 



District 26 

Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 



10,523 



6,331 



48,096 



15,709 



58,619 



22,040 



47,306 



16,437 



80.7% 



74.6% 



11,313 



5,603 



District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 



937 
461 



5,915 
4,155 



6,852 
4,616 



6,015 
4,163 



87.8% 
90.2% 



837 
453 



District Totals 



1,398 



10,070 



11,468 



10,178 



88.8% 



1,290 



District 28 

Buncombe 



3,057 



16,552 



19,609 



15,900 



81.1% 



3,709 



254 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/90 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/91 


District 29 














Henderson 


870 


5,669 


6,539 


5,270 


80.6% 


1,269 


McDowell 


517 


2,188 


2,705 


2,226 


82.3% 


479 


Polk 


104 


669 


773 


680 


88.0% 


93 


Rutherford 


1,051 


4,769 


5,820 


4,631 


79.6% 


1,189 


Transylvania 


278 


1,521 


1,799 


1,511 


84.0% 


288 


District Totals 


2,820 


14,816 


17,636 


14,318 


81.2% 


3,318 


District 30 














Cherokee 


249 


1,173 


1,422 


1,224 


86.1% 


198 


Clay 


59 


392 


451 


363 


80.5% 


88 


Graham 


112 


484 


596 


464 


77.9% 


132 


Haywood 


357 


2,786 


3,143 


2,757 


87.7% 


386 


Jackson 


180 


1,028 


1,208 


1,051 


87.0% 


157 


Macon 


129 


825 


954 


825 


86.5% 


129 


Swain 


57 


521 


578 


502 


86.9% 


76 


District Totals 


1,143 


7,209 


8,352 


7,186 


86.0% 


1,166 


State Totals 


126,918 


610,286 


737,204 


605,286 


82.1% 


131,918 



255 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT 
CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Misdemeanors 



Other (46,345) 



Waiver (61,419) 



Dismissal (180,618) 




Guilty Plea (210,370) 



Not Guilty Plea (Trial) 
(41,231) 



Felony Probable Cause Matters 



Superseding Indictment 
(32,532) 




Heard and Bound Over 
(6,314) 

Probable Cause Not 
Found (3,1 13) 



Probable Cause Hearing 
Waived (23,344) 






The waivers shown in the upper chart are waivers of trial in 
worthless check cases where the defendant pleads guilty to a 
magistrate. The "Other" category includes changes of venue, 
waivers of extradition, findings of no probable cause at initial 



appearance, and dismissals by the court. The proportion of 
district court felonies superseded by indictment increased 
each of the last five years, from 34.1% in 1986-87 to 49.8% 
this year. 



256 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 

















Felony 






Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 1 


















Camden 


1 


69 


5 


28 


46 


32 


23 


204 


Chowan 


95 


353 


S3 


123 


243 


84 


85 


1,066 


Currituck 


48 


185 


2 


102 


155 


195 


94 


781 


Dare 


160 


787 


75 


295 


806 


907 


210 


3,240 


Gates 


40 


106 


3 


24 


67 


45 


33 


318 


Pasquotank 


286 


1.096 


36 


315 


811 


186 


329 


3,059 


Perquimans 


9 


109 


19 


60 


97 


94 


66 


454 


District Totals 


639 


2,705 


223 


947 


2,225 


1,543 


840 


9,122 


% of Total 


7.0% 


29.7% 


2.4% 


10.4% 


24.4% 


16.9% 


9.2% 


100.0% 


District 2 


















Beaufort 


467 


1,148 


389 


436 


485 


376 


351 


3,652 


Hyde 


13 


98 


40 


65 


53 


222 


21 


512 


Martin 


314 


645 


18 


208 


207 


222 


230 


1,844 


Tyrrell 


7 


92 


19 


68 


29 


77 


23 


315 


Washington 


161 


289 


38 


173 


70 


71 


154 


956 


District Totals 


962 


2,272 


504 


950 


844 


968 


779 


7,279 


% of Total 


13.2% 


31.2% 


6.9% 


13.1% 


11.6% 


13.3% 


10.7% 


100.0% 


District 3 


















Carteret 


677 


1,624 


819 


286 


2,255 


422 


368 


6,451 


Craven 


1,504 


2,459 


188 


347 


2,488 


615 


601 


8,202 


Pamlico 


42 


224 


22 


60 


233 


163 


122 


866 


Pitt 


3,641 


5,148 


429 


697 


3,727 


527 


1,479 


15,648 


District Totals 


5,864 


9,455 


1,458 


1,390 


8,703 


1,727 


2,570 


31,167 


% of Total . 


18.8% 


30.3% 


4.7% 


4.5% 


27.9% 


5.5% 


8.2% 


100.0% 


District 4 


















Duplin 


469 


1,064 


22 


108 


554 


318 


488 


3,023 


Jones 


26 


191 





34 


237 


160 


23 


671 


Onslow 


2,981 


4,250 


169 


380 


2,488 


672 


1,603 


12.543 


Sampson 


680 


1,404 


51 


122 


909 


53 


593 


3,812 


District Totals 


4,156 


6,909 


242 


644 


4,188 


1,203 


2,707 


20,049 


% of Total 


20.7% 


34.5% 


1.2% 


3.2% 


20.9% 


6.0% 


13.5% 


100.0% 


District 5 


















New Hanover 


1,265 


7,066 


396 


1,090 


3,142 


1,018 


1,841 


15,818 


Pender 


87 


677 


74 


137 


530 


275 


374 


2,154 


District Totals 


1,352 


7,743 


470 


1,227 


3,672 


1,293 


2,215 


17,972 


% of Total 


7.5% 


43.1% 


2.6% 


6.8% 


20.4% 


7.2% 


12.3% 


100.0% 



257 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Felony 





Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 
Disposed 




Judge 


Magistrate 


District 6A 


















Halifax 


449 


1,963 


290 


736 


1,276 


756 


671 


6,141 


% of Total 


7.3% 


32.0% 


4.7% 


12.0% 


20.8% 


12.3% 


10.9% 


100.0% 


District 6B 


















Bertie 


73 


546 


10 


221 


357 


198 


90 


1,495 


Hertford 


174 


959 


46 


161 


560 


205 


232 


2,337 


Northampton 


75 


539 


82 


149 


417 


239 


231 


1,732 


District Totals 


322 


2.044 


138 


531 


1,334 


642 


553 


5,564 


% of Total 


5.8% 


36.7% 


2.5% 


9.5% 


24.0% 


11.5% 


9.9% 


100.0% 


District 7 


















Edgecombe 


987 


2,648 


305 


848 


1,824 


360 


710 


7,682 


Nash 


2,036 


3,355 


366 


840 


2,559 


378 


1,123 


10,657 


Wilson 


837 


2,600 


287 


491 


2,301 


305 


1,151 


7,972 


District Totals 


3,860 


8,603 


958 


2,179 


6,684 


1,043 


2,984 


26,311 


% of Total 


14.7% 


32.7% 


3.6% 


8.3% 


25.4% 


4.0% 


11.3% 


100.0% 


District 8 


















Greene 


22 


196 


77 


78 


288 


104 


103 


868 


Lenoir 


476 


2,101 


51 


451 


2,439 


555 


451 


6,524 


Wayne 


1,244 


2,449 


55 


414 


3,289 


442 


622 


8,515 


District Totals 


1,742 


4,746 


183 


943 


6,016 


1,101 


1,176 


15,907 


% of Total 


11.0% 


29.8% 


1.2% 


5.9% 


37.8% 


6.9% 


7.4% 


100.0% 


District 9 


















Franklin 


384 


899 


184 


260 


609 


188 


549 


3,073 


Granville 


284 


1,200 


79 


344 


518 


279 


496 


3,200 


Person 


304 


751 


75 


286 


477 


133 


585 


2,611 


Vance 


437 


1,924 


224 


688 


1,240 


573 


422 


5,508 


Warren 


101 


405 


24 


177 


266 


128 


181 


1,282 


District Totals 


1,510 


5,179 


586 


1,755 


3,110 


1,301 


2,233 


15,674 


% of Total 


9.6% 


33.0% 


3.7% 


11.2% 


19.8% 


8.3% 


14.2% 


100.0% 


District 10 


















Wake 


6,036 


9,473 


1,745 


2,149 


10,793 


2,713 


4,550 


37,459 


% of Total 


16.1% 


25.3% 


4.7% 


5.7% 


28.8% 


7.2% 


12.1% 


100.0% 


District 11 


















Harnett 


863 


2,025 


83 


204 


1,974 


793 


413 


6,355 


Johnston 


1,051 


2,882 


158 


439 


1,496 


756 


578 


7,360 


Lee 


716 


2,372 


246 


274 


1,573 


455 


403 


6,039 


District Totals 


2,630 


7,279 


487 


917 


5,043 


2,004 


1,394 


19,754 


% of Total 


13.3% 


36.8% 


2.5% 


4.6% 


25.5% 


10.1% 


7.1% 


100.0% 



258 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 

















Felony 






Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 12 


















Cumberland 


4,557 


7,054 


66 


1,596 


6,464 


480 


2,456 


22,673 


% of Total 


20.1% 


31.1% 


0.3% 


7.0% 


28.5% 


2.1% 


10.8% 


100.0% 


District 13 


















Bladen 


383 


997 


61 


306 


1,010 


523 


227 


3,507 


Brunswick 


326 


1,231 


262 


367 


1,386 


232 


389 


4,193 


Columbus 


773 


1,518 


37 


277 


1,199 


306 


219 


4,329 


District Totals 


1,482 


3,746 


360 


950 


3,595 


1,061 


835 


12,029 


% of Total 


12.3% 


31.1% 


3.0% 


7.9% 


29.9% 


8.8% 


6.9% 


100.0% 


District 14 


















Durham 


1,179 


6,724 


38 


824 


6,289 


2,149 


1,542 


18,745 


% of Total 


6.3% 


35.9% 


0.2% 


4.4% 


33.6% 


11.5% 


8.2% 


100.0% 


District ISA 


















Alamance 


834 


3,842 


329 


635 


1,927 


365 


1,860 


9,792 


% of Total 


8.5% 


39.2% 


3.4% 


6.5% 


19.7% 


3.7% 


19.0% 


100.0% 


District 15B 


















Chatham 


190 


639 


65 


126 


576 


603 


310 


2,509 


Orange 


351 


1,792 


66 


236 


2,075 


421 


643 


5,584 


District Totals 


541 


2,431 


131 


362 


2,651 


1,024 


953 


8,093 


% of Total 


6.7% 


30.0% 


1.6% 


4.5% 


32.8% 


12.7% 


11.8% 


100.0% 


District 16A 


















Hoke 


261 


744 


21 


468 


465 


180 


373 


2,512 


Scotland 


637 


1,791 


50 


517 


950 


485 


511 


4,941 


District Totals 


898 


2.535 


71 


985 


1,415 


665 


884 


7,453 


% of Total 


12.0% 


34.0% 


1.0% 


13.2% 


19.0% 


8.9% 


11.9% 


100.0% 


District 16B 


















Robeson 


1,032 


5,043 


561 


1,307 


1,584 


1,345 


2,671 


13,543 


% of Total 


7.6% 


37.2% 


4.1% 


9.7% 


11.7% 


9.9% 


19.7% 


100.0% 


District 17A 


















Caswell 


60 


311 


66 


211 


175 


114 


97 


1,034 


Rockingham 


406 


2,303 


86 


1,118 


1,140 


756 


912 


6,721 


District Totals 


466 


2,614 


152 


1,329 


1,315 


870 


1,009 


7,755 


% of Total 


6.0% 


33.7% 


2.0% 


17.1% 


17.0% 


11.2% 


13.0% 


100.0% 


District 17B 


















Stokes 


198 


507 


25 


197 


451 


310 


524 


2,212 


Surry 


382 


1,532 


175 


380 


1,162 


460 


859 


4,950 


District Totals 


580 


2.039 


200 


577 


1,613 


770 


1,383 


7,162 


% of Total 


8.1% 


28.5% 


2.8% 


8.1% 


22.5% 


10.8% 


19.3% 


100.0% 



259 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Felony 





Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guilty Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 18 


















Guilford 


1,387 


12,487 


2,236 


1,870 


16,467 


2,310 


4,381 


41,138 


% of Total 


3.4% 


30.4% 


5.4% 


4.5% 


40.0% 


5.6% 


10.6% 


100.0% 


District 19A 


















Cabarrus 


1,215 


2,020 


59 


1,017 


1,627 


398 


1,333 


7,669 


% of Total 


15.8% 


26.3% 


0.8% 


13.3% 


21.2% 


5.2% 


17.4% 


100.0% 


District 19B 


















Montgomery 


246 


794 


275 


270 


953 


59 


263 


2,860 


Randolph 


914 


2,330 


40 


446 


2,027 


159 


693 


6,609 


District Totals 


1,160 


3,124 


315 


716 


2,980 


218 


956 


9,469 


% of Total 


12.3% 


33.0% 


3.3% 


7.6% 


31.5% 


2.3% 


10.1% 


100.0% 


District 19C 


















Rowan 


513 


1,660 


91 


840 


1,839 


621 


1,288 


6,852 


% of Total 


7.5% 


24.2% 


1.3% 


12.3% 


26.8% 


9.1% 


18.8% 


100.0% 


District 20 


















Anson 


142 


721 


193 


430 


388 


341 


345 


2,560 


Moore 


1,047 


1,473 


250 


419 


1,287 


361 


750 


5,587 


Richmond 


315 


1,456 


76 


697 


1,060 


345 


870 


4,819 


Stanly 


277 


961 


23 


435 


568 


410 


313 


2,987 


Union 


1,087 


1,782 


129 


738 


1,061 


775 


914 


6,486 


District Totals 


2,868 


6,393 


671 


2,719 


4,364 


2,232 


3,192 


22,439 


% of Total 


12.8% 


28.5% 


3.0% 


12.1% 


19.4% 


9.9% 


14.2% 


100.0% 


District 21 


















Forsyth 


2,431 


10,441 





2,705 


8,125 


1,093 


2,877 


27,672 


% of Total 


8.8% 


37.7% 


0.0% 


9.8% 


29.4% 


3.9% 


10.4% 


100.0% 


District 22 


















Alexander 


160 


590 


12 


82 


788 


334 


226 


2,192 


Davidson 


381 


3,497 


119 


636 


6,225 


786 


767 


12,411 


Davie 


116 


460 


11 


57 


585 


97 


80 


1,406 


Iredell 


453 


3,187 


347 


421 


3,502 


676 


997 


9,583 


District Totals 


1,110 


7,734 


489 


1,196 


11,100 


1,893 


2,070 


25,592 


% of Total 


4.3% 


30.2% 


1.9% 


4.7% 


43.4% 


7.4% 


8.1% 


100.0% 


District 23 


















Alleghany 


32 


176 


37 


45 


125 


47 


47 


509 


Ashe 


181 


420 


43 


107 


233 


161 


75 


1,220 


Wilkes 


490 


1,740 


288 


582 


641 


356 


354 


4,451 


Yadkin 


118 


491 


70 


134 


204 


104 


121 


1,242 


District Totals 


821 


2,827 


438 


868 


1,203 


668 


597 


7,422 


% of Total 


11.1% 


38.1% 


5.9% 


11.7% 


16.2% 


9.0% 


8.0% 


100.0% 



s 



260 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 

















Felony 






Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 24 


















Avery 


96 


171 


76 


44 


463 


301 


6 


1,157 


Madison 


32 


179 


39 


35 


438 


70 


146 


939 


Mitchell 


37 


115 


27 


24 


180 


71 


62 


516 


Watauga 


413 


600 


195 


71 


837 


546 


178 


2,840 


Yancey 


39 


133 


14 


2S 


204 


168 


21 


607 


District Totals 


617 


1,198 


351 


202 


2,122 


1,156 


413 


6,059 


% of Total 


10.2% 


19.8% 


5.8% 


3.3% 


35.0% 


19.1% 


6.8% 


100.0% 


District 25 


















Burke 


737 


1,839 


2S 


324 


1,498 


516 


392 


5,334 


Caldwell 


397 


1,814 


227 


326 


1,237 


398 


714 


5,113 


Catawba 


804 


3,201 


156 


409 


2,980 


850 


1,158 


9,558 


District Totals 


1,938 


6,854 


411 


1,059 


5,715 


1,764 


2,264 


20,005 


% of Total 


9.7% 


34.3% 


2.1% 


5.3% 


28.6% 


8.8% 


11.3% 


100.0% 


District 26 


















Mecklenburg 


765 


14,088 


365 


1,660 


23,833 


3,953 


2,642 


47,306 


% of Total 


1.6% 


29.8% 


0.8% 


3.5% 


50.4% 


8.4% 


5.6% 


100.0% 


District 27A 


















Gaston 


466 


3,708 


444 


812 


7,932 


987 


2,088 


16,437 


% of Total 


2.8% 


22.6% 


2.7% 


4.9% 


48.3% 


6.0% 


12.7% 


100.0% 


District 27B 


















Cleveland 


501 


1,941 


108 


423 


1,777 


499 


766 


6,015 


Lincoln 


529 


1,113 


143 


252 


891 


667 


568 


4,163 


District Totals 


1,030 


3,054 


251 


675 


2,668 


1,166 


1,334 


10,178 


% of Total 


10.1% 


30.0% 


2.5% 


6.6% 


26.2% 


11.5% 


13.1% 


100.0% 


District 28 


















Buncombe 


2,331 


6,817 


197 


627 


3,326 


1,071 


1,531 


15,900 


% of Total 


14.7% 


42.9% 


1.2% 


3.9% 


20.9% 


6.7% 


9.6% 


100.0% 


District 29 


















Henderson 


557 


1,849 


355 


203 


1,707 


234 


365 


5,270 


McDowell 


136 


761 


174 


144 


707 


95 


209 


2,226 


Polk 


11 


187 


9 


32 


272 


92 


77 


680 


Rutherford 


280 


1,673 


310 


476 


1,191 


244 


457 


4,631 


Transylvania 


147 


504 


55 


15 


382 


266 


S2 


1,511 


District Totals 


1,131 


4,974 


903 


930 


4,259 


931 


1,190 


14,318 


% of Total 


7.9% 


34.7% 


6.3% 


6.5% 


29.7% 


6.5% 


8.3% 


100.0% 



261 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Felony 





Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guilt\ 


Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 
Disposed 




Judge 


Magistrate 


District 30 


















Cherokee 


124 


337 


12 


55 


419 


183 


94 


1,224 


Clay 


20 


40 


3 


21 


69 


158 


52 


363 


Graham 


18 


86 





22 


129 


171 


38 


464 


Haywood 


198 


905 


86 


183 


900 


98 


387 


2,757 


Jackson 


59 


265 


19 


57 


335 


189 


127 


1,051 


Macon 


89 


242 


50 


46 


251 


31 


116 


825 


Swain 


37 


84 


50 


18 


214 


31 


68 


502 


District Totals 


545 


1,959 


220 


402 


2,317 


861 


882 


7,186 


% of Total 


7.6% 


27.3% 


3.1% 


5.6% 


32.2% 


12.0% 


12.3% 


100.0% 


State Totals 


61,419 


193,737 


16,633 


41,231 


180,618 


46,345 


65,303 


605,286 


% of Total 


10.1% 


32.0% 


2.7% 


6.8% 


29.8% 


7.7% 


10.8% 


100.0% 



262 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 









Ages of Pendi 


ng Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 1 




















Camden 


9 








3 








12 


91.3 


50.5 


Chowan 


150 


8 


5 


22 


7 


4 


196 


91.5 


30.0 


Currituck 


96 


7 


3 


6 


L9 


2 


133 


125.3 


44.0 


Dare 


524 


11 


12 


16 


3 


4 


570 


48.5 


23.0 


Gates 


25 


2 














27 


31.3 


20.0 


Pasquotank 


368 


32 


19 


5 


1 


1 


426 


45.7 


33.0 


Perquimans 


61 


6 


2 


2 


2 





73 


51.9 


26.0 


District Totals 


1,233 


66 


41 


54 


M 


11 


1,437 


60.9 


26.0 


% of Total 


85.8% 


4.6% 


2.9% 


3.8% 


2.2% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 2 




















Beaufort 


289 


21 


12 


10 


15 


2 


349 


62.0 


17.0 


Hyde 


46 





3 


6 








55 


48.6 


18.0 


Martin 


181 


13 


9 


3 


4 


1 


211 


53.7 


26.0 


Tyrrell 


29 


3 


1 











33 


27.9 


19.0 


Washington 


59 








3 








62 


31.3 


21.5 


District Totals 


604 


37 


25 


22 


19 


3 


710 


54.2 


19.0 


% of Total 


85.1% 


5.2% 


3.5% 


3.1% 


2.7% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 3 




















Carteret 


1,033 


93 


112 


135 


89 


31 


1,493 


117.5 


53.0 


Craven 


1,213 


140 


201 


221 


53 


18 


1,846 


100.7 


54.0 


Pamlico 


85 


4 


17 


10 


6 





122 


91.9 


46.5 


Pitt 


2,340 


320 


398 


274 


48 


2 


3,382 


78.2 


52.0 


District Totals 


4,671 


557 


728 


640 


196 


51 


6,843 


93.1 


52.0 


% of Total 


68.3% 


8.1% 


10.6% 


9.4% 


2.9% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






District 4 




















Duplin 


473 


32 


61 


21 


1 





588 


57.4 


40.0 


Jones 


45 


12 


6 


6 








69 


70.9 


46.0 


Onslow 


1,616 


188 


261 


357 


154 


8 


2,584 


107.1 


54.0 


Sampson 


424 


45 


90 


33 


3 





595 


66.7 


40.0 


District Totals 


2,558 


277 


418 


417 


158 


8 


3,836 


92.6 


47.0 


% of Total 


66.7% 


7.2% 


10.9% 


10.9% 


4.1% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 5 




















New Hanover 


1,765 


154 


216 


422 


523 


276 


3,356 


240.0 


76.0 


Pender 


202 


28 


33 


35 


29 





327 


115.9 


53.0 


District Totals 


1,967 


182 


249 


457 


552 


276 


3,683 


229.0 


75.0 


% of Total 


53.4% 


4.9% 


6.8% 


12.4% 


15.0% 


7.5% 


100.0% 






District 6A 




















Halifax 


921 


75 


76 


34 


2 





1,108 


49.5 


23.0 


% of Total 


83.1% 


6.8% 


6.9% 


3.1% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







263 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 







Ages of Cases Pending Ji 


Line 30, 


1991 














Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 
Age 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


89 


10 


14 


29 


21 


1 


164 


145.1 


68.0 


Hertford 


216 


13 


8 


20 


11 


1 


269 


70.3 


23.0 


Northampton 


126 


4 


14 


12 


4 





160 


65.1 


24.0 


District Totals 


431 


27 


36 


61 


36 


2 


593 


89.6 


27.0 


% of Total 


72.7% 


4.6% 


6.1% 


10.3% 


6.1% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 7 




















Edgecombe 


1,130 


142 


162 


234 


157 


69 


1,894 


151.5 


68.0 


Nash 


1,684 


142 


242 


254 


222 


52 


2,596 


133.3 


55.0 


Wilson 


1,467 


235 


388 


523 


328 


75 


3,016 


168.3 


96.0 


District Totals 


4,281 


519 


792 


1,011 


707 


196 


7,506 


151.9 


72.0 


% of Total 


57.0% 


6.9% 


10.6% 


13.5% 


9.4% 


2.6% 


100.0% 






District 8 




















Greene 


96 


20 


12 


29 


7 





164 


108.4 


65.0 


Lenoir 


1,060 


181 


208 


130 


46 


8 


1,633 


93.0 


62.0 


Wayne 


1,345 


144 


169 


329 


108 


2 


2,097 


108.3 


61.0 


District Totals 


2,501 


345 


389 


488 


161 


10 


3,894 


101.9 


62.0 


% of Total 


64.2% 


8.9% 


10.0% 


12.5% 


4.1% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 9 




















Franklin 


277 


17 


26 


37 


21 


9 


387 


109.9 


40.0 


Granville 


264 


33 


35 


38 


7 


19 


396 


120.9 


33.0 


Person 


341 


10 


29 


95 


12 


21 


508 


150.0 


40.0 


Vance 


379 


56 


65 


63 


39 


49 


651 


194.9 


60.0 


Warren 


154 


6 


5 


13 


10 


3 


191 


103.1 


33.0 


District Totals 


1,415 


122 


160 


246 


89 


101 


2,133 


146.8 


46.0 


% of Total 


66.3% 


5.7% 


7.5% 


11.5% 


4.2% 


4.7% 


100.0% 






District 10 




















Wake 


5,067 


586 


1,180 


1,664 


1,153 


2,014 


11,664 


365.3 


125.0 


% of Total 


43.4% 


5.0% 


10.1% 


14.3% 


9.9% 


17.3% 


100.0% 






District 11 




















Harnett 


746 


68 


84 


68 


30 


19 


1,015 


91.6 


37.0 


Johnston 


971 


54 


135 


82 


21 





1,263 


67.6 


38.0 


Lee 


638 


75 


60 


46 


5 





824 


58.9 


33.0 


District Totals 


2,355 


197 


279 


196 


56 


19 


3,102 


73.1 


37.0 


% of Total 


75.9% 


6.4% 


9.0% 


6.3% 


1.8% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






District 12 




















Cumberland 


3,344 


580 


697 


1,010 


374 


109 


6,114 


139.3 


79.0 


% of Total 


54.7% 


9.5% 


11.4% 


16.5% 


6.1% 


1.8% 


100.0% 







264 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 









Ages of Pending Cases (C 


ays) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 13 




















Bladen 


454 


25 


18 


28 


7 


1 


533 


56.5 


17.0 


Brunswick 


617 


32 


2} 


11 


12 





695 


49.7 


32.0 


Columbus 


462 


23 


34 


22 








541 


49.2 


32.0 


District Totals 


1,533 


SO 


75 


61 


19 


1 


1,769 


51.6 


27.0 


% of Total 


86.7% 


4.5% 


4.2% 


3.4% 


1.1% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 14 




















Durham 


2,582 


342 


562 


729 


539 


96 


4,850 


158.6 


82.0 


% of Total 


53.2% 


7.1% 


11.6% 


15.0% 


11.1% 


2.0% 


100.0% 






District 15A 




















Alamance 


1,111 


106 


130 


106 


41 


15 


1,509 


84.4 


41.0 


% of Total 


73.6% 


7.0% 


8.6% 


7.0% 


2.7% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






District 15B 




















Chatham 


292 


30 


11 


26 


9 


1 


369 


71.5 


31.0 


Orange 


785 


59 


93 


39 


7 


2 


985 


60.7 


33.0 


District Totals 


1,077 


89 


104 


65 


16 


3 


1,354 


63.7 


32.0 


% of Total 


79.5% 


6.6% 


7.7% 


4.8% 


1.2% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 16A 




















Hoke 


324 


35 


43 


37 


4 


2 


445 


74.7 


41.0 


Scotland 


523 


52 


59 


46 


16 





696 


76.9 


48.0 


District Totals 


847 


87 


102 


83 


20 


2 


1,141 


76.0 


47.0 


% of Total 


74.2% 


7.6% 


8.9% 


7.3% 


1.8% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 16B 




















Robeson 


1,635 


141 


231 


270 


62 


8 


2,347 


85.6 


44.0 


% of Total 


69.7% 


6.0% 


9.8% 


11.5% 


2.6% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 17A 




















Caswell 


79 








3 








82 


24.5 


11.0 


Rockingham 


841 


21 


29 


36 


5 


5 


937 


42.2 


18.0 


District Totals 


920 


21 


29 


39 


5 


5 


1,019 


40.8 


17.0 


% of Total 


90.3% 


2.1% 


2.8% 


3.8% 


0.5% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 17B 




















Stokes 


342 


16 


24 


24 


6 





412 


54.8 


19.0 


Surry 


830 


55 


31 


41 


3 


5 


965 


61.7 


40.0 


District Totals 


1,172 


71 


55 


65 


9 


5 


1,377 


59.6 


37.0 


% of Total 


85.1% 


5.2% 


4.0% 


4.7% 


0.7% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 18 




















Guilford 


6,811 


1,503 


2,168 


3,604 


3,389 


1,530 


19,005 


263.7 


151.0 


% of Total 


35.8% 


7.9% 


11.4% 


19.0% 


17.8% 


8.1% 


100.0% 







265 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 







/ 


iges of Penc 


ling Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


827 


20 


33 


7 








896 


33.4 


20.0 


% of Total 


92.3% 


3.2% 


3.7% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 19B 




















Montgomery 


366 


19 


29 


69 


37 


17 


537 


142.3 


46.0 


Randolph 


1,075 


101 


138 


141 


40 


3 


1,498 


86.0 


53.0 


District Totals 


1,441 


120 


167 


210 


77 


20 


2,035 


100.8 


52.0 


% of Total 


70.8% 


5.9% 


8.2% 


10.3% 


3.8% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






District 19C 




















Rowan 


813 


43 


73 


30 


1 


1 


961 


51.9 


32.0 


% of Total 


84.6% 


4.5% 


7.6% 


3.1% 


0.1% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 20 




















Anson 


293 


7 


11 


12 


16 


13 


352 


91.1 


25.0 


Moore 


393 


14 


33 


95 


40 


10 


585 


120.6 


48.0 


Richmond 


529 


31 


21 


9 


11 


16 


617 


74.8 


20.0 


Stanly 


328 


6 


10 


7 








351 


38.3 


27.0 


Union 


536 


19 


35 


53 


9 





652 


59.1 


23.0 


District Totals 


2,079 


77 


110 


176 


76 


39 


2,557 


78.5 


27.0 


% of Total 


81.3% 


3.0% 


4.3% 


6.9% 


3.0% 


1.5% 


100.0% 






District 21 




















Forsyth 


2,659 


224 


302 


49 


4 





3,238 


50.3 


32.0 


% of Total 


82.1% 


6.9% 


9.3% 


1.5% 


0.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 22 




















Alexander 


319 


9 


27 


13 


2 





370 


57.6 


40.0 


Davidson 


1,468 


57 


86 


13 








1,624 


36.6 


23.0 


Davie 


211 


13 


37 


17 


14 


2 


294 


90.2 


47.0 


Iredell 


1,210 


146 


118 


65 


6 





1,545 


59.0 


41.0 


District Totals 


3,208 


225 


268 


108 


22 


2 


3,833 


51.8 


31.0 


% of Total 


83.7% 


5.9% 


7.0% 


2.8% 


0.6% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 23 




















Alleghany 


100 


33 


5 


5 


3 





146 


61.1 


16.5 


Ashe 


59 


1 


13 


7 


20 


11 


111 


323.4 


82.0 


Wilkes 


401 


38 


71 


97 


110 


126 


843 


299.7 


104.0 


Yadkin 


104 


5 


6 


12 


1 





128 


61.0 


33.0 


District Totals 


664 


77 


95 


121 


134 


137 


1,228 


248.6 


79.5 


% of Total 


54.1% 


6.3% 


7.7% 


9.9% 


10.9% 


11.2% 


100.0% 







266 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 









Ages of Per 


ding Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 24 




















Avery 


137 


J9 


32 


67 


17 


11 


303 


179.1 


104.0 


Madison 


129 


26 


17 


53 


S 


5 


238 


143.0 


89.0 


Mitchell 


87 


5 


6 


14 


IS 


7 


137 


171.8 


54.0 


Watauga 


243 


31 


55 


49 


16 


4 


398 


112.5 


62.0 


Yancey 


55 


4 


6 


30 


S 





103 


151.8 


82.0 


District Totals 


651 


105 


116 


213 


67 


27 


1,179 


146.1 


80.0 


% of Total 


55.2% 


8.9% 


9.8% 


18.1% 


5.7% 


2.3% 


100.0% 






District 25 




















Burke 


552 


18 


62 


31 


50 


5 


718 


92.2 


38.0 


Caldwell 


486 


13 


27 


20 


10 


15 


571 


80.2 


31.0 


Catawba 


1,033 


97 


85 


91 


3 





1,309 


59.5 


33.0 


District Totals 


2,071 


128 


174 


142 


63 


20 


2,598 


73.1 


33.0 


% of Total 


79.7% 


4.9% 


6.7% 


5.5% 


2.4% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 26 




















Mecklenburg 


5,747 


748 


830 


1,392 


1,787 


809 


11,313 


227.0 


86.0 


% of Total 


50.8% 


6.6% 


7.3% 


12.3% 


15.8% 


7.2% 


100.0% 






District 27A 




















Gaston 


3,067 


520 


861 


867 


267 


21 


5,603 


118.6 


80.0 


% of Total 


54.7% 


9.3% 


15.4% 


15.5% 


4.8% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 27B 




















Cleveland 


655 


27 


65 


62 


24 


4 


837 


76.6 


37.0 


Lincoln 


378 


19 


36 


13 


7 





453 


53.2 


26.0 


District Totals 


1,033 


46 


101 


75 


31 


4 


1,290 


68.4 


32.0 


% of Total 


80.1% 


3.6% 


7.8% 


5.8% 


2.4% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 28 




















Buncombe 


2,253 


351 


479 


529 


91 


6 


3,709 


99.5 


68.0 


% of Total 


60.7% 


9.5% 


12.9% 


14.3% 


2.5% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 29 




















Henderson 


827 


63 


102 


117 


107 


53 


1,269 


148.4 


51.0 


McDowell 


329 


37 


35 


47 


22 


9 


479 


115.9 


48.0 


Polk 


77 


5 


4 


7 








93 


50.8 


23.0 


Rutherford 


549 


77 


89 


216 


137 


121 


1,189 


248.8 


104.0 


Transylvania 


163 


24 


23 


29 


25 


24 


288 


223.1 


67.0 


District Totals 


1,945 


206 


253 


416 


291 


207 


3,318 


183.4 


65.0 


% of Total 


58.6% 


6.2% 


7.6% 


12.5% 


8.8% 


6.2% 


100.0% 







267 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1991 









Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


142 


4 


12 


5 


13 


22 


198 


246.8 


51.0 


Clay 


81 


1 


3 





2 


1 


88 


50.2 


16.0 


Graham 


85 


8 


3 


30 


6 





132 


108.2 


27.0 


Haywood 


279 


41 


22 


38 


6 





386 


74.3 


40.0 


Jackson 


133 


12 


8 


2 


1 


1 


157 


52.3 


23.0 


Macon 


112 


2 


9 





6 





129 


64.2 


37.0 


Swain 


60 


6 


4 


6 








76 


59.3 


30.0 


District Totals 


892 


74 


61 


81 


34 


24 


1,166 


100.6 


33.0 


% of Total 


76.5% 


6.3% 


5.2% 


6.9% 


2.9% 


2.1% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


78,386 


8,983 


12,449 


15,738 


10,580 


5,782 


131,918 


164.4 


65.0 


% of Total 


59.4% 


6.8% 


9.4% 


11.9% 


8.0% 


4.4% 


100.0% 













268 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 







Ar 


;s of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 1 




















Camden 


184 


7 





13 








204 


45.0 


27.0 


Chowan 


981 


32 


25 


14 


14 





1,066 


39.6 


22.0 


Currituck 


713 


8 


13 


36 


11 


I) 


781 


45.4 


22.0 


Dare 


2,771 


129 


158 


162 


19 


1 


3,240 


51.4 


29.0 


Gates 


290 


8 


14 


6 








318 


43.2 


34.0 


Pasquotank 


2,808 


76 


75 


87 


12 


1 


3,059 


40.5 


24.0 


Perquimans 


400 


22 


9 


16 


7 





454 


52.7 


35.5 


District Totals 


8,147 


282 


294 


334 


63 


2 


9,122 


45.5 


26.0 


% of Total 


89.3% 


3.1% 


3.2% 


3.7% 


0.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 2 




















Beaufort 


3,396 


72 


64 


57 


59 


4 


3,652 


35.4 


15.0 


Hyde 


489 


1 


7 


14 


1 





512 


28.9 


18.0 


Martin 


1,726 


17 


18 


44 


31 


8 


1,844 


36.8 


13.0 


Tyrrell 


296 


9 


8 


2 








315 


31.8 


22.0 


Washington 


909 


21 


11 


9 


6 





956 


28.8 


15.0 


District Totals 


6,816 


120 


108 


126 


97 


12 


7,279 


34.3 


15.0 


% of Total 


93.6% 


1.6% 


1.5% 


1.7% 


1.3% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 3 




















Carteret 


4,855 


458 


560 


440 


118 


20 


6,451 


71.7 


39.0 


Craven 


5,953 


591 


669 


817 


164 


8 


8,202 


75.3 


37.0 


Pamlico 


708 


53 


42 


45 


16 


2 


866 


59.0 


27.0 


Pitt 


12,292 


1,311 


1,191 


742 


105 


7 


15,648 


62.3 


43.0 


District Totals 


23,808 


2,413 


2,462 


2,044 


403 


37 


31,167 


67.6 


41.0 


% of Total 


76.4% 


7.7% 


7.9% 


6.6% 


1.3% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 4 




















Duplin 


2,562 


175 


176 


98 


12 





3,023 


49.9 


33.0 


Jones 


557 


26 


28 


34 


25 


1 


671 


65.0 


22.0 


Onslow 


10,141 


801 


789 


661 


149 


2 


12,543 


54.9 


26.0 


Sampson 


3,218 


278 


202 


85 


28 


1 


3,812 


51.1 


34.0 


District Totals 


16,478 


1,280 


1,195 


878 


214 


4 


20,049 


53.7 


28.0 


% of Total 


82.2% 


6.4% 


6.0% 


4.4% 


1.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 5 




















New Hanover 


13,231 


858 


715 


568 


246 


200 


15,818 


67.0 


31.0 


Pender 


1,898 


71 


53 


68 


28 


36 


2,154 


63.7 


22.0 


District Totals 


15,129 


929 


768 


636 


274 


236 


17,972 


66.6 


30.0 


% of Total 


84.2% 


5.2% 


4.3% 


3.5% 


1.5% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






District 6A 




















Halifax 


5,476 


258 


193 


163 


48 


3 


6,141 


42.9 


25.0 


% of Total 


89.2% 


4.2% 


3.1% 


2.7% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







269 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 







Aj 


»es of Dispo 


sed Cases ( 


Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


1,407 


27 


31 


15 


14 


1 


1,495 


32.3 


17.0 


Hertford 


2,183 


60 


44 


39 


S 


3 


2,337 


32.1 


18.0 


Northampton 


1,580 


64 


59 


24 


5 





1,732 


32.6 


18.0 


District Totals 


5,170 


151 


134 


7S 


27 


4 


5,564 


32.3 


18.0 


% of Total 


92.9% 


2.7% 


2.4% 


1.4% 


0.5% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 7 




















Edgecombe 


5,728 


568 


567 


589 


166 


64 


7,682 


81.3 


42.0 


Nash 


7,738 


812 


759 


967 


336 


45 


10,657 


85.5 


47.0 


Wilson 


4,825 


724 


890 


1,094 


416 


23 


7,972 


108.0 


63.0 


District Totals 


18,291 


2,104 


2,216 


2,650 


918 


132 


26,311 


91.1 


49.0 


% of Total 


69.5% 


8.0% 


8.4% 


10.1% 


3.5% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 8 




















Greene 


687 


72 


65 


32 


8 


4 


868 


61.3 


28.0 


Lenoir 


4,763 


635 


607 


477 


40 


2 


6,524 


69.4 


43.0 


Wayne 


5,958 


716 


824 


853 


161 


3 


8,515 


81.9 


49.0 


District Totals 


11,408 


1,423 


1,496 


1,362 


209 


9 


15,907 


75.7 


45.0 


% of Total 


71.7% 


8.9% 


9.4% 


8.6% 


1.3% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 9 




















Franklin 


2,692 


174 


139 


57 


5 


6 


3,073 


45.6 


27.0 


Granville 


2,866 


117 


137 


59 


19 


2 


3,200 


41.8 


24.0 


Person 


2,227 


150 


114 


79 


40 


1 


2,611 


52.5 


31.0 


Vance 


4,694 


254 


248 


210 


81 


21 


5,508 


51.5 


19.0 


Warren 


1,103 


46 


60 


62 


11 





1,282 


43.0 


16.0 


District Totals 


13,582 


741 


698 


467 


156 


30 


15,674 


47.8 


24.0 


% of Total 


86.7% 


4.7% 


4.5% 


3.0% 


1.0% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 10 




















Wake 


27,817 


2,553 


2,379 


3,163 


1,411 


136 


37,459 


79.9 


34.0 


% of Total 


74.3% 


6.8% 


6.4% 


8.4% 


3.8% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 11 




















Harnett 


5,008 


272 


322 


440 


265 


48 


6,355 


78.2 


28.0 


Johnston 


5,993 


416 


509 


372 


69 


1 


7,360 


54.8 


28.0 


Lee 


5,413 


243 


223 


145 


15 





6,039 


40.7 


25.0 


District Totals 


16,414 


931 


1,054 


957 


349 


49 


19,754 


58.1 


27.0 


% of Total 


83.1% 


4.7% 


5.3% 


4.8% 


1.8% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 12 




















Cumberland 


15,464 


1,955 


2,752 


2,146 


330 


26 


22,673 


77.6 


43.0 


% of Total 


68.2% 


8.6% 


12.1% 


9.5% 


1.5% 


0.1% 


100.0% 







! 



270 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 







Ag 


?s of Disposed Cases 


(l)avs) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 13 




















Bladen 


3,026 


116 


166 


121 


7h 


2 


3,507 


54.1 


27.0 


Brunswick 


3,734 


195 


155 


71 


34 


4 


4,193 


48.2 


34.0 


Columbus 


3,800 


219 


194 


105 


9 


2 


4,329 


43.0 


26.0 


District Totals 


10,560 


530 


515 


297 


119 


8 


12,029 


48.1 


28.0 


% of Total 


87.8% 


4.4% 


4.3% 


2.5% 


1.0% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 14 




















Durham 


12,017 


1,826 


1,611 


1,305 


1,228 


758 


18,745 


137.7 


57.0 


% of Total 


64.1% 


9.7% 


8.6% 


7.0% 


6.6% 


4.0% 


100.0% 






District ISA 




















Alamance 


8,578 


446 


356 


274 


134 


4 


9,792 


48.4 


28.0 


% of Total 


87.6% 


4.6% 


3.6% 


2.8% 


1.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 15B 




















Chatham 


2,252 


77 


79 


87 


13 


1 


2,509 


41.7 


22.0 


Orange 


4,527 


380 


343 


267 


64 


3 


5,584 


59.8 


36.0 


District Totals 


6,779 


457 


422 


354 


77 


4 


8,093 


54.2 


32.0 


% of Total 


83.8% 


5.6% 


5.2% 


4.4% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 16A 




















Hoke 


2,024 


157 


215 


98 


15 


3 


2,512 


60.9 


41.5 


Scotland 


4,386 


237 


155 


125 


33 


5 


4,941 


45.1 


27.0 


District Totals 


6,410 


394 


370 


223 


48 


8 


7,453 


50.4 


30.0 


% of Total 


86.0% 


5.3% 


5.0% 


3.0% 


0.6% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 16B 




















Robeson- 


11,478 


781 


780 


388 


105 


11 


13,543 


44.3 


21.0 


% of Total 


84.8% 


5.8% 


5.8% 


2.9% 


0.8% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 17A 




















Caswell 


943 


31 


37 


18 


5 





1,034 


37.1 


22.0 


Rockingham 


6,253 


140 


170 


142 


11 


5 


6,721 


38.6 


25.0 


District Totals 


7,196 


171 


207 


160 


16 


5 


7,755 


38.4 


24.0 


% of Total 


92.8% 


2.2% 


2.7% 


2.1% 


0.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 17B 




















Stokes 


1,754 


186 


123 


114 


32 


3 


2,212 


62.8 


39.0 


Surry 


3,679 


552 


515 


185 


19 





4,950 


66.8 


51.0 


District Totals 


5,433 


738 


638 


299 


51 


3 


7,162 


65.6 


47.0 


% of Total 


75.9% 


10.3% 


8.9% 


4.2% 


0.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 18 




















Guilford 


22,331 


3,379 


4,525 


6,353 


3,435 


1,115 


41,138 


153.2 


77.0 


% of Total 


54.3% 


8.2% 


11.0% 


15.4% 


8.3% 


2.7% 


100.0% 







271 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 







A) 


»es of Dispo 


sed Cases ( 


Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


7,034 


221 


199 


213 


2 





7,669 


42.1 


30.0 


% of Total 


91.7% 


2.9% 


2.6% 


2.8% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 19B 




















Montgomery 


2,392 


137 


128 


175 


24 


4 


2,860 


57.5 


34.0 


Randolph 


4,865 


542 


535 


431 


189 


47 


6,609 


83.7 


52.0 


District Totals 


7,257 


679 


663 


606 


213 


51 


9,469 


75.8 


46.0 


% of Total 


76.6% 


7.2% 


7.0% 


6.4% 


2.2% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 19C 




















Rowan 


5,907 


348 


450 


145 


2 





6,852 


48.5 


33.0 


% of Total 


86.2% 


5.1% 


6.6% 


2.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 20 




















Anson 


2,408 


64 


44 


42 


2 





2,560 


35.3 


21.0 


Moore 


4,855 


146 


102 


208 


158 


118 


5,587 


69.1 


18.0 


Richmond 


4,276 


239 


123 


119 


55 


7 


4,819 


46.2 


24.0 


Stanly 


2,768 


128 


79 


12 








2,987 


36.1 


27.0 


Union 


5,999 


122 


207 


113 


30 


15 


6,486 


43.1 


22.0 


District Totals 


20,306 


699 


555 


494 


245 


140 


22,439 


48.4 


23.0 


% of Total 


90.5% 


3.1% 


2.5% 


2.2% 


1.1% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






District 21 




















Forsyth 


24,832 


695 


682 


1,277 


158 


28 


27,672 


42.7 


20.0 


% of Total 


89.7% 


2.5% 


2.5% 


4.6% 


0.6% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 22 




















Alexander 


1,824 


82 


129 


141 


16 





2,192 


61.4 


34.5 


Davidson 


11,024 


825 


391 


158 


13 





12,411 


44.2 


31.0 


Davie 


1,092 


123 


92 


71 


18 


10 


1,406 


68.8 


38.0 


Iredell 


7,848 


752 


536 


378 


67 


2 


9,583 


58.5 


38.0 


District Totals 


21,788 


1,782 


1,148 


748 


114 


12 


25,592 


52.4 


35.0 


% of Total 


85.1% 


7.0% 


4.5% 


2.9% 


0.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 23 




















Alleghany 


439 


41 


7 


22 








509 


48.6 


30.0 


Ashe 


1,147 


17 


18 


20 





18 


1,220 


52.4 


22.0 


Wilkes 


3,809 


207 


240 


149 


22 


24 


4,451 


49.7 


23.0 


Yadkin 


1,068 


71 


54 


48 


1 





1,242 


43.8 


24.5 


District Totals 


6,463 


336 


319 


239 


23 


42 


7,422 


49.1 


23.0 


% of Total 


87.1% 


4.5% 


4.3% 


3.2% 


0.3% 


0.6% 


100.0% 







272 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 







Ag< 


;s of Disposed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 24 




















Avery 


744 


95 


113 


127 


61 


17 


1,157 


113.8 


56.0 


Madison 


569 


110 


116 


101 


40 


3 


939 


103.3 


63.0 


Mitchell 


413 


35 


22 


25 


21 





516 


74.2 


42.5 


Watauga 


2,281 


199 


209 


141 


10 





2,840 


55.6 


33.0 


Yancey 


459 


46 


52 


42 


8 





607 


71.2 


50.0 


District Totals 


4,466 


485 


512 


436 


140 


20 


6,059 


77.2 


43.0 


% of Total 


73.7% 


8.0% 


8.5% 


7.2% 


2.3% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 25 




















Burke 


4,587 


357 


161 


217 


12 





5,334 


47.3 


28.0 


Caldwell 


4,216 


353 


366 


166 


9 


3 


5,113 


54.7 


38.0 


Catawba 


7,874 


557 


420 


665 


42 





9,558 


57.4 


33.0 


District Totals 


16,677 


1,267 


947 


1,048 


63 


3 


20,005 


54.0 


33.0 


% of Total 


83.4% 


6.3% 


4.7% 


5.2% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 26 




















Mecklenburg 


38,496 


2,576 


2,377 


2,504 


997 


356 


47,306 


66.0 


33.0 


% of Total 


81.4% 


5.4% 


5.0% 


5.3% 


2.1% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 27A 




















Gaston 


8,014 


1,744 


2,152 


3,461 


982 


84 


16,437 


137.9 


93.0 


% of Total 


48.8% 


10.6% 


13.1% 


21.1% 


6.0% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 27B 




















Cleveland 


5,234 


316 


228 


201 


35 


1 


6,015 


47.3 


28.0 


Lincoln 


3,776 


153 


115 


96 


18 


5 


4,163 


40.6 


25.0 


District Totals 


9,010 


469 


343 


297 


53 


6 


10,178 


44.6 


27.0 


% of Total 


88.5% 


4.6% 


3.4% 


2.9% 


0.5% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 28 




















Buncombe 


11,947 


1,026 


1,075 


1,499 


327 


26 


15,900 


76.4 


41.0 


% of Total 


75.1% 


6.5% 


6.8% 


9.4% 


2.1% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 29 




















Henderson 


4,365 


298 


263 


252 


85 


7 


5,270 


61.1 


34.0 


McDowell 


1,676 


186 


161 


118 


64 


21 


2,226 


83.5 


44.0 


Polk 


548 


49 


49 


32 


2 





680 


56.8 


40.0 


Rutherford 


3,840 


275 


215 


199 


61 


41 


4,631 


65.8 


35.0 


Transylvania 


1,207 


122 


85 


67 


26 


4 


1,511 


59.6 


33.0 


District Totals 


11,636 


930 


773 


668 


238 


73 


14,318 


65.7 


36.0 


% of Total 


81.3% 


6.5% 


5.4% 


4.7% 


1.7% 


0.5% 


100.0% 







273 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 







Ages of Disposed Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


1,024 


34 


31 


45 


72 


18 


1,224 


88.7 


32.0 


Clay 


330 


12 


2 


8 


8 


3 


363 


54.2 


31.0 


Graham 


382 


20 


28 


15 


19 





464 


69.2 


41.0 


Haywood 


2,340 


148 


148 


113 


8 





2,757 


48.4 


28.0 


Jackson 


954 


39 


31 


21 


6 





1,051 


43.3 


28.0 


Macon 


684 


53 


25 


35 


26 


2 


825 


60.9 


28.0 


Swain 


464 


12 


13 


12 


1 





502 


39.4 


27.0 


District Totals 


6,178 


318 


278 


249 


140 


23 


7,186 


57.0 


29.0 


% of Total 


86.0% 


4.4% 


3.9% 


3.5% 


1.9% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


474,793 


37,437 


37,646 


38,541 


13,409 


3,460 


605,286 


71.3 


34.0 


% of Total 


78.4% 


6.2% 


6.2% 


6.4% 


2.2% 


0.6% 


100.0% 







274 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 



IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1990 -June 30, 1991 



Filed 



District 1 




Camden 


1,418 


Chowan 


2,309 


Currituck 


3,703 


Dare 


7,763 


Gates 


1,845 


Pasquotank 


3,090 


Perquimans 


2,278 


District Totals 


22,406 


District 2 




Beaufort 


6,728 


Hyde 


921 


Martin 


3,494 


Tyrrell 


2,082 


Washington 


1,607 


District Totals 


14,832 


District 3 




Carteret 


6,057 


Craven 


5,488 


Pamlico 


395 


Pitt 


11,351 


District Totals 


23,291 


District 4 




Duplin 


5,098 


Jones 


1,142 


Onslow 


8,541 


Sampson 


7,608 


District Totals 


22,389 


District 5 




New Hanover 


10,379 


Pender 


3,619 


District Totals 


13,998 


District 6A 




Halifax 


8,662 


District 6B 




Bertie 


2,558 


Hertford 


2,263 


Northampton 


2,569 


District Totals 


7,390 



Waiver 



1.152 
1,738 
3,010 
6,364 
1,411 
2,414 
1,692 

17,781 



3,923 

616 

2,175 

1,411 

990 

9,115 



4,200 

3,395 

229 

5,598 

13,422 



3,320 

659 

5,519 

4,860 

14,358 



3,729 
2,311 

6,040 



6,481 



1,764 
1,473 

1,757 

4,994 



Dispositions 






Other 


Total 


Dispositions 


269 




1,421 


589 




2,327 


466 




3,476 


1,752 




8,116 


450 




1,861 


621 




3,035 


338 




2,030 



4,485 



2,764 
281 

1,151 
591 
665 

5,452 



2,098 

2,115 

208 

5,935 

10,356 



1,504 

450 

2,918 

2,646 

7,518 



6,599 
1,259 

7,858 



1,865 



706 
827 
894 

2,427 



22,266 



6,687 
897 
3,326 
2,002 
1,655 

14,567 



6,298 
5,510 

437 
11,533 

23,778 



4,824 
1,109 
8,437 
7,506 

21,876 



10.328 
3,570 

13,898 



8,346 



2,470 
2,300 
2,651 

7,421 



275 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



Filed 



Waiver 



Dispositions 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 7 




Edgecombe 


6,475 


Nash 


7,281 


Wilson 


7,947 


District Totals 


21,703 


District 8 




Greene 


1,574 


Lenoir 


7,743 


Wayne 


8,669 


District Totals 


17,986 


District 9 




Franklin 


2,691 


Granville 


5,375 


Person 


2,394 


Vance 


4,625 


Warren 


1,530 


District Totals 


16,615 


District 10 




Wake 


34,353 


District 11 




Harnett 


5,030 


Johnston 


8,286 


Lee 


5,752 


District Totals 


19,068 


District 12 




Cumberland 


19,560 


District 13 




Bladen 


4,547 


Brunswick 


4,999 


Columbus 


6,307 


District Totals 


15,853 


District 14 




Durham 


14,238 


District 15A 




Alamance 


12,553 



5,375 
5.684 
6,443 

17,502 



1,059 
4,163 
5,015 

10,237 



1,470 
3,236 
1,259 
2,976 
1,079 

10,020 



17,937 



2,756 
4,893 
3,639 

11,288 



12,863 



2,864 
2,361 
3,821 

9,046 



8,623 



7,458 



1,485 
1,636 
1,521 

4,642 



587 
3,648 
3,685 

7,920 



1,058 
1,969 

1,171 

1,484 

473 

6,155 



20,549 



2,412 
3,052 
2,250 

7,714 



7,475 



1,695 
2,523 
2,519 

6,737 



5,081 



5,552 



6,860 
7,320 
7,964 

22,144 



1,646 
7,811 
8,700 

18,157 



2,528 
5,205 
2,430 
4,460 
1,552 

16,175 



38,486 



5,168 
7,945 
5,889 

19,002 



20,338 



4,559 
4,884 
6,340 

15,783 



13,704 



13,010 



276 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 



Filed 



Waiver 



Dispositions 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 15B 




Chatham 


5,602 


Orange 


8,636 


District Totals 


14,238 


District 16A 




Hoke 


2,368 


Scotland 


2,596 


District Totals 


4,964 


District 16B 




Robeson 


9,284 


District 17A 




Caswell 


1,762 


Rockingham 


11,081 


District Totals 


12,843 


District 17B 




Stokes 


4,264 


Surry 


6,950 


District Totals 


11,214 


District 18 




Guilford 


50,098 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 


9,705 


District 19B 




Montgomery 


2,877 


Randolph 


10,106 


District Totals 


12,983 


District 19C 




Rowan 


9,260 


District 20 




Anson 


2,070 


Moore 


8,023 


Richmond 


2,956 


Stanly 


3,883 


Union 


6,231 


District Totals 


23,163 



3,484 
4,448 

7,932 



1,647 
1,773 

3,420 



6,772 



1,187 
7,511 

8,698 



2,880 
4,939 

7,819 



27,647 



6,607 



1,796 
5,371 

7,167 



5,440 



1,361 
4,531 
1.921 
2,368 
4,103 

14,284 



2,007 
4,076 

6,083 



782 
742 

1,524 



3,111 



618 
3,820 

4,438 



1,557 
1,931 

3,488 



24,497 



3,098 



1,090 
4,495 

5,585 



4,050 



727 
3,573 
1,252 
1,417 
2,451 

9,420 



5,491 
8,524 

14,015 



2,429 
2,515 

4,944 



9,883 



1,805 
11,331 

13,136 



4,437 
6,870 

11,307 

52,144 

9,705 



2,886 
9,866 

12,752 



9,490 



2,088 
8,104 
3,173 
3,785 
6,554 

23.704 



277 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1990 -- June 30, 1991 

Dispositions 



Filed 



Waiver 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 21 




Forsyth 


25,410 


District 22 




Alexander 


1,885 


Davidson 


11,038 


Davie 


4,214 


Iredell 


11,792 


District Totals 


28,929 


District 23 




Alleghany 


860 


Ashe 


1,541 


Wilkes 


3,801 


Yadkin 


3,848 


District Totals 


10,050 


District 24 




Avery 


1,899 


Madison 


1,475 


Mitchell 


953 


Watauga 


2,617 


Yancey 


1,449 


District Totals 


8,393 


District 25 




Burke 


6,141 


Caldwell 


3,631 


Catawba 


10,628 


District Totals 


20,400 


District 26 




Mecklenburg 


50,111 


District 27A 




Gaston 


15,403 


District 27B 




Cleveland 


8,662 


Lincoln 


2,708 


District Totals 


11,370 


District 28 




Buncombe 


8,436 



13,975 



1,036 
6,289 
2,445 
7,963 

17,733 



483 

947 

2,270 

2,798 

6,498 



1,415 
1,130 
626 
1,813 
1,080 

6,064 



2,594 
1,135 
4,023 

7,752 



21,523 



6,955 



4,205 
1,131 

5,336 



7,022 



11,451 



759 
4,724 
1,554 
3,936 

10,973 



314 

647 

1,570 

1,085 

3,616 



450 
390 
264 
772 
467 

2,343 



3,644 
2,496 
6,665 

12,805 



30,308 



7,928 



4,563 
1,598 

6,161 



1,461 



25,426 



1,795 
11,013 

3,999 
11,899 

28,706 



797 
1,594 
3,840 
3,883 

10,114 



1,865 
1,520 
890 
2,585 
1,547 

8,407 



6,238 

3,631 

10,688 

20,557 



51,831 



14,883 



8,768 
2,729 

11,497 



8,483 



278 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1990 --June 30, 1991 

Dispositions 





Filed 


Waiver 


Other 


Total Dispositions 


District 29 










Henderson 


5,831 


4,593 


1,211 


5,804 


McDowell 


4,065 


3,066 


1,056 


4,122 


Polk 


1,748 


1,368 


414 


1,782 


Rutherford 


3,754 


2,684 


1,285 


3,969 


Transylvania 


1,408 


955 


487 


1,442 


District Totals 


16,806 


12,666 


4,453 


17,119 


District 30 










Cherokee 


2,375 


1,878 


467 


2,345 


Clay 


798 


538 


248 


786 


Graham 


540 


421 


115 


536 


Haywood 


3,276 


2,572 


778 


3,350 


Jackson 


2,177 


1,565 


627 


2,192 


Macon 


2,918 


2,346 


556 


2,902 


Swain 


1,687 


1,266 


416 


1,682 


District Totals 


13,771 


10,586 


3,207 


13,793 


State Totals 


651,728 


389,061 


271,786 


660,847 



279 



"ATE JBRARN OF NORTH CAROLINA 



3 3091 00748 3373 



N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts 

1,750 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of 
$9,187.50, or $5.25 per copy.