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.
2The Director and the Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the
pleasure of the Chief Justice.
3The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other trial
courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge from the judges elected in each of the 37 district court
districts.
4The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the
Judicial Department.
5The district attorney sets the criminal case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and
the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their respective
courts.
6In 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
0
5
2
6
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
0
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
0
0
0
17
0
554
5
8
0
554
4
11
0
0
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
0
2
2
5
1
2
2
0
0
2
3A
7
1
1
2
3
0
3
3B
10
0
2
2
6
0
5
4A
s
4
3
1
0
0
2
4B
b
2
1
3
0
0
3
5
13
3
5
2
3
0
4
6A
6
4
0
2
0
0
1
6B
3
1
1
0
1
0
1
7A
2
1
0
0
I
0
1
7B-C
7
I
1
0
5
0
3
8A
3
0
3
0
0
0
1
8B
4
0
1
1
2
0
4
SUBTOTAL
81
21
21
17
22
0
32
II
9
7
1
1
1
4
0
5
10
53
7
3
1
15
27
27
11
13
1
3
2
7
0
3
12
12
3
I
4
4
0
8
13
8
2
3
1
2
0
3
14
10
2
0
2
4
2
3
15A
11
2
3
1
5
0
4
15B
10
0
2
2
5
1
4
16A
3
1
0
0
2
0
1
16B
13
5
5
3
0
0
4
SUBTOTAL
140
24
21
17
48
30
62
III
17A
5
2
2
1
0
0
3
17B
5
1
1
1
2
0
2
18
22
2
7
4
9
0
9
19A
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
19B
4
1
0
0
3
0
2
19C
3
0
2
0
1
0
1
20A
X
2
1
0
5
0
4
20 B
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
21
29
1
5
4
18
1
13
22
9
5
1
0
3
0
6
23
5
1
3
1
0
0
3
SUBTOTAL
92
17
22
11
41
1
45
IV
24
6
1
0
0
5
0
0
25 A
5
2
I
0
2
0
2
25B
5
0
I
2
2
0
1
26
27
4
7
2
14
0
8
27A
5
1
1
0
3
0
4
27B
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
28
15
2
1
0
12
0
8
29
14
2
6
3
3
0
9
30A
7
2
1
1
3
0
1
30B
2
0
0
1
1
0
I
SUBTOTAL
88
14
19
10
45
0
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
0
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
0
2
13
1
17
Total
Disposed
24
5
246
194
29
498
8
0
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
0
0
I
3
0
4
Juvenile
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other civil
11
2
6
15
2
36
Criminal (death sentence)
2
0
0
0
19
21
Criminal (life sentence)
25
0
0
0
6
31
Other criminal
7
1
4
4
1
17
Administrative agency decision
3
0
0
6
0
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
0
0
0
0
2
Juvenile
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other civil
20
0
3
3
1
27
Criminal (death sentence)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal (life sentence)
1
0
0
0
0
1
Other criminal
6
0
0
0
1
7
Administrative agency decision
4
0
0
0
0
4
Totals
33
0
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
0
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
0
0
0
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
0
Totals
415
415
Motions
Allowed
Denied
Remanded
905
390
0
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
* ^
2Q
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
0
>
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
<
0
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 r1
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
0
172
212
40
80
115
14
10
14
1
0
4
0
3
4
0
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
0
90
66
8
3
2
3
District 15B
Chatham
Orange
23
103
0
0
23
103
14
69
4
18
2
6
1
8
1
4
District Totals
126
0
126
83
22
8
9
5
District 19B
Montgomery
Randolph
8
85
0
0
8
85
2
60
0
18
0
3
0
4
0
11
District Totals
93
0
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
0
10
8
4
0
0
4
Rutherford
33
2
35
29
4
1
0
3
Transylvania
26
2
28
19
3
0
0
3
District Totals
182
12
194
154
47
4
3
40
District 30A
Cherokee
21
0
21
10
1
0
0
1
Clay
14
0
14
8
0
0
0
0
Graham
9
1
10
3
2
0
0
2
Macon
12
0
12
11
3
0
0
3
Swain
24
0
24
11
0
0
0
0
District Totals
80
1
81
43
6
0
0
6
District 30B
Haywood
49
1
50
41
9
0
0
9
Jackson
38
0
38
27
10
0
0
10
District Totals
87
1
88
68
19
0
0
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
Removed1 Settled2 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
0
$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
0
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
$ 0
$ 43,945
$ 0
$ 769,689
Alexander
18,501
10,880
4,216
57,554
0
587
0
91,738
Alleghany
8,661
6,385
3,894
44,005
0
384
0
63,329
Anson
27,956
16,974
0
161,065
0
1,930
672
208,597
Ashe
19,067
16,796
4,084
71,839
0
1,776
0
113,562
Avery
16,615
13,942
589
65,164
0
1,092
0
97,402
Beaufort
67,606
55,265
24,308
262,708
0
13,638
0
423,525
Bertie
25,189
22,723
2,875
129,596
0
494
0
180,877
Bladen
47,155
42,394
2,463
223,251
353
3,884
0
319,500
Brunswick
56,954
37,203
120
209,300
700
18,470
0
322,747
Buncombe
187,882
131,986
1,232
900,949
0
30,866
0
1,252,915
Burke
S9.201
39,237
9,039
373,727
0
9,678
0
520,882
Cabarrus
114,854
63,706
22,773
561,549
3,867
52,590
0
819,339
Caldwell
65,440
25,755
10,702
376,772
0
15,004
0
493,673
Camden
10,272
9,417
150
56,835
0
0
0
76,674
Carteret
71,078
37,531
1,112
277,159
0
19,768
0
406,648
Caswell
17,335
16,150
1,314
116,016
9
177
0
151,001
Catawba
74,517
44,895
11,876
624,358
40,790
25,714
0
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
0
1,742
0
157,112
Chowan
21,912
19,702
2,361
86,683
0
5,504
0
136,162
Clay
6,442
5,498
1,932
42,922
0
0
0
56,794
Cleveland
88,117
44,037
24,243
406,246
0
8,415
0
571,058
Columbus
55,832
57,300
5,737
217,692
2,309
4,750
0
343,620
Craven
85,192
38,858
15,077
367,402
2,784
19,119
0
528,432
Cumberland
286,654
107,513
26,255
889,900
0
68,827
0
1,379,149
Currituck
28,142
26,913
3,654
122,563
0
0
0
181,272
Dare
73,749
33,787
7,875
381,938
0
28,068
0
525,417
Davidson
104,320
91,818
10,180
652,607
21,290
14,236
0
894,451
Davie
32,795
28,163
3,950
134,412
0
29
0
199,349
Duplin
45,456
31,732
8,982
208,913
0
1,129
80
296,292
Durham
240,985
95,900
1,414
1,078,115
0
88,139
0
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
0
1,883,830
Franklin
34,382
23,830
3,653
181,827
0
404
0
244,096
Gaston
153,815
108,652
3,794
463,704
0
24,279
0
754,244
Gates
13,914
12,245
2,015
61,423
0
0
0
89,597
Graham
6,743
5,870
3,001
37,546
0
78
0
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
0
0
0
99,603
Guilford
479,900
64,465
13,238
1,365,542
0
199,630
0
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
0
487,337
Haywood
44,086
36,186
14,345
251,158
1,956
3,900
0
351,631
Henderson
70,582
45,841
3,209
374,256
0
2,968
0
496,856
Hertford
28,261
21,084
3,835
148,587
0
2,096
0
203,863
Hoke
29,276
21,336
6,227
153,692
0
2,451
0
212,982
Hyde
7,763
7,182
1,528
43,853
0
0
0
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
0
0
0
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
0
337
0
49,246
Lee
68,277
39,500
26,834
276,497
0
21,120
0
432,228
Lenoir
81,382
39,563
13,377
357,540
0
20,535
1)
512,397
Lincoln
39,795
28,156
8,761
188,044
0
4,836
0
269,592
Macon
21,790
17,098
2,416
132,735
0
1,101
0
175,140
Madison
13,761
12,331
1,227
64,019
0
733
0
92,071
Martin
34,209
27,361
7,648
132,411
0
2,537
0
204,166
McDowell
39,596
30,004
130
160,425
0
2,838
0
232,993
Mecklenburg
637,764
104,158
33
1,564,686
0
411,729
0
2,718,370
Mitchell
10,267
6,751
3,291
39,219
0
1,396
0
60,924
Montgomery
36,189
34,861
4,840
187,519
0
1,537
0
264,946
Moore
74,208
54,210
335
445,787
4,250
15,065
0
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
0
751,122
Northampton
23,730
22,312
2,640
144,871
780
1,975
0
196,308
Onslow
136,139
72,245
22,388
398,665
0
56,104
0
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
0
0
0
64,952
Pasquotank
41.193
20,847
4,849
197,144
0
15,448
0
279,481
Pender
30,535
25,241
5,356
144,401
0
1,384
0
206,917
Perquimans
15,245
12,354
630
68,399
0
677
0
97,305
Person
31,901
26,644
2,276
158,050
0
4,766
0
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
0
87
0
95,178
Randolph
96,146
70,695
6,214
497,810
4,039
16,956
0
691,860
Richmond
52,090
30,255
4,966
338,993
0
6,542
0
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
0
35,349
0
793,120
Rutherford
62,365
41,002
5,266
318,486
o
9,593
0
436,712
Sampson
71,662
62,406
7,752
272,770
0
3,990
0
418,580
Scotland
47,268
32,774
4,427
267,559
0
8,688
0
360,716
Stanly
47,708
21,410
5,168
301,574
0
1 1 ,890
0
387,750
Stokes
34,682
27,592
835
198,552
0
676
0
262,337
Surry
71,278
60,083
2,198
349,911
1,200
11,891
0
496,561
Swain
11,874
9,207
2,115
81,792
0
641
(1
105,629
Transylvania
21,806
22,178
5,480
103,070
0
2,079
0
154,613
Tyrrell
13,228
12,058
1,110
63,902
(1
0
0
90,298
Union
87,271
70,486
9,845
511,838
11
16,576
0
696,016
Vance
73,195
34,684
12,007
311,594
0
1 1 ,662
0
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
0
281
(1
138,909
Washington
17,829
13,016
3,400
78,373
0
2,370
0
114,988
Watauga
33,788
22,844
3,574
103,349
0
5,610
0
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
0
2,408
0
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
0
587
0
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
0
6
13
1
11
5
75
0
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
0
0
0
260
350
0
0
0
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
0
85
3,600
0
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
0
2
685
0
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
0
551
0
District Totals
2,289
644,460
3
551
District 6 A
Halifax
495
139,447
0
0
District Totals
495
139,447
0
0
District 6B
Bertie
Hertford
Northampton
173
273
252
65,631
101,275
94,081
1
0
1
50
0
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
0
1,984
0
District Totals
1,806
585,842
2
1,984
District 8 A
Greene
Lenoir
105
864
78,311
268,910
0
0
0
0
District Totals
969
347,221
0
0
District 8B
Wayne
1,191
336,663
0
0
District Totals
1,191
336,663
0
0
District 9
Franklin
Granville
Person
Vance
Warren
518
557
360
868
151
146,886
160,524
101,951
234,290
44,160
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
875
0
75
District Totals
2,454
687,811
4
950
District 10
Wake
6,055
1,359,472
0
0
District Totals
6,055
1,359,472
0
0
District 11
Harnett
Johnston
Lee
1,106
1,442
854
250,880
347,427
167,466
0
0
0
0
0
0
District Totals
3,402
765,773
0
0
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
0
4
0
1,050
District Totals
439
119,361
4
1,050
District 16A
Hoke
Scotland
31
147
8,075
31,927
0
3
0
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
0
2,435
0
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
0
0
District Totals
840
204,490
0
0
District 19 B
Montgomery
Randolph
273
1,161
75,072
289,434
0
13
0
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
0
6
0
0
800
0
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
0
5
0
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
0
7
1
2
0
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
0
0
3
0
0
0
650
0
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
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
1,325
750
0
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
0
3
0
1
2
0
796
0
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
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
194
325
0
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 — 11H^ 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
0
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
0
17
Pasquotank
(1
11
54
12
8
10
95
Perquimans
1
1
14
3
0
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
0
0
4
3
1
0
8
Washington
1
4
17
0
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
0
88
Jones
1
2
9
0
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
0
1
1
5
4
9
24
18
14
16
2
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
2
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
4
12
3
o
1
20
Ashe
0
8
11
4
2
1
26
Wilkes
4
34
98
0
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
0
Other
6
1
3
8
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
2
22
Rutherford
0
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
0
11
2
1
0
18
Graham
0
4
11
3
0
0
18
Macon
7
7
13
15
4
5
51
Swain
2
2
4
6
2
0
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%
3erson
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
0.0%
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
0.0%
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
0.0%
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
0.0%
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
0.0%
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
0
25.7%
23.5%
29.2%
50.0%
33.3%
7
10.0%
4
23.5%
5
10.4%
0
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
0.0%
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
0.0%
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
0.0%
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
0
12
0
!howan
27
60
2
28
1
Airrituck
18
12
0
9
0
)are
139
61
13
165
2
iates
63
8
6
19
0
asquotank
176
46
14
92
28
'erquimans
26
6
0
19
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
0
1
26
12
0
0
117
235
70
0
0
3
42
25
0
0
2
382
1
0
0
0
96
0
0
0
0
356
212
0
0
4
55
29
0
0
127
1,192
349
0.0%
0.0%
10.7%
100.0%
29.3%
0
0
3
483
381
0
0
0
30
22
0
0
8
221
129
0
0
2
47
22
0
0
5
139
95
0
0
18
920
649
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
100.0%
70.5%
0
0
25
1,526
893
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
100.0%
58.5%
0
0
8
460
260
0
0
7
701
448
0
0
21
149
106
0
0
36
1,310
814
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
100.0%
62.1%
0
0
1
512
314
0
0
0
64
48
0
0
5
714
309
0
0
6
1,290
671
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
100.0%
52.0%
0
0
44
1,317
639
0.0%
0.0%
3.3%
100.0%
48.5%
0
0
17
1,779
942
0
0
5
443
194
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
0
0
140
80
Hertford
162
26
12
106
3
0
0
10
319
146
Northampton
162
6
18
72
3
0
0
3
264
209
j
District Totals
405
42
34
223
6
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
7
1,039
380
Wilson
430
82
14
353
7
0
0
7
893
732
District Totals
641
274
31
940
32
0
0
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
0
0
3
114
65
Lenoir
277
116
30
152
24
0
0
8
607
395
District Totals
343
129
35
173
30
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
0
13
486
436
Granville
121
98
11
136
21
0
0
6
393
217
Person
161
100
9
200
1
0
0
1
472
262
Vance
414
40
14
225
7
0
0
10
710
308
Warren
66
26
4
71
4
0
0
2
173
86
District Totals
1,035
310
43
781
33
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
13
673
359
hnston
306
141
16
97
7
0
0
7
574
422
;e
244
67
12
58
4
0
0
6
391
310
District Totals
846
328
46
366
26
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
7
259
153
•unswick
209
41
30
125
5
0
0
2
412
337
slumbus
124
43
7
128
4
0
0
4
310
164
District Totals
478
100
44
334
12
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
4
260
213
■ange
325
40
15
140
31
0
0
9
560
366
District Totals
488
61
23
202
33
0
0
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
0
0
0
2
290
212
:otland
345
27
13
54
10
0
0
18
467
361
District Totals
589
34
21
83
10
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
0
130
88
Rockingham
726
126
77
290
56
0
0
6
1,281
804
District Totals
806
143
79
318
59
0
0
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
0
0
0
8
398
292
Surry
549
109
5
106
9
0
0
27
805
490
District Totals
863
137
6
153
9
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
10
285
156
Randolph
576
144
32
252
113
0
0
10
1,127
665
District Totals
711
175
47
345
114
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
0
292
188
Moore
290
95
30
517
18
0
0
6
956
342
Richmond
309
88
15
358
37
0
0
5
812
386
District Totals
728
242
48
972
59
0
0
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
0
0
12
272
187
Union
251
109
42
372
3
0
0
11
788
640
District Totals
382
126
51
468
10
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
0
4
191
153
vidson
511
129
14
95
3
0
0
6
758
537
vie
50
8
1
9
0
0
0
4
72
54
iell
680
75
29
117
9
0
(1
15
925
430
District Totals
1,399
221
48
237
12
0
0
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
0
0
7
1
0
0
4
43
32
le
12
19
5
13
0
0
0
1
50
30
Ikes
312
41
23
34
22
0
0
6
438
120
dkin
71
3
12
4
0
0
0
3
93
59
District Totals
426
63
40
58
23
0
0
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
0
16
10
0
0
10
63
0
■dison
19
31
3
44
2
0
0
7
106
43
tchell
19
3
5
40
0
0
0
3
70
50
itauga
75
55
7
130
0
0
0
0
267
124
ncey
39
0
0
13
0
0
0
2
54
35
District Totals
171
97
15
243
12
0
0
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
0
0
8
567
181
ldwell
315
58
8
295
26
0
0
28
730
511
District Totals
■ 532
110
20
553
46
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
16
826
36
Lincoln
237
42
7
130
22
0
0
19
457
221
District Totals
647
141
38
387
35
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
7
456
206
McDowell
127
22
19
226
2
0
2
11
409
107
Polk
45
3
4
24
0
0
0
3
79
37
Rutherford
323
101
25
124
38
0
0
17
628
288
Transylvania
68
35
12
94
1
0
0
3
213
91
District Totals
738
197
92
596
119
0
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
0
0
12
208
23
Clay
6
2
4
6
1
0
0
12
31
2
Graham
33
1
2
63
0
0
0
1
100
36
Macon
84
52
4
71
28
0
0
12
251
67
Swain
5
5
14
45
1
0
0
5
75
25
District Totals
171
101
29
279
43
0
0
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
0
0
17
579
397
Jackson
120
21
10
149
17
4
0
21
342
190
District Totals
353
116
36
319
55
4
0
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
0.0%
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
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
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
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
0.0%
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
0.0%
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
0
16
2.0%
31
14
5
0
19
2.0%
10
0
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
0
4
7
19
5
23
4
Speedy
After Deferred Trial Total
Prosecution Dismissals Other Dispositions
284 / 62
18.6% 4.1%
6
0
8
0
4
18
2.2%
53
4.8%
31
35
0
66
6.8%
158 7
42.9% 1.9?
15
0
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
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
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
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
0
19
54
8
tford
49
0
7
22
3
0
0
7
88
20
rthampton
24
0
4
20
4
0
o
22
74
13
district Totals
90
2
12
57
7
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
82
494
104
Is on
119
7
2
122
7
0
0
69
326
139
District Totals
296
25
6
301
41
0
0
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
0
0
0
47
93
11
ioir
82
38
5
112
16
0
0
138
391
37
District Totals
103
43
9
128
16
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
0
80
332
227
inville
114
17
5
92
11
0
0
44
283
128
son
98
11
4
171
0
1
0
57
342
109
nee
301
10
3
182
24
0
0
129
649
203
irren
84
4
2
46
0
0
0
25
161
75
District Totals
727
96
17
556
35
1
0
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
0
0
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
0
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
0
0
77
217
43
0
0
126
325
98
0
0
53
234
105
0
0
256
776
246
0.0%
0.0%
33.0%
100.0%
31.7%
0
0
239
479
125
0.0%
0.0%
49.9%
100.0%
26.1%'
0
0
84
213
46
0
0
61
168
45
0
0
112
293
73
0
0
257
674
164 :
0.0%
0.0%
38.1%
100.0%
24.3%>
0
0
94
465
169
0.0%
0.0%
20.2%
100.0%
36.3%;
0 0 123 684
0.0% 0.0% 18.0% 100.0%
0
0
20
66
8
0
0
73
165
48 j
0
0
93
231
56
0.0%
0.0%
40.3%
100.0%
24.2%
0
0
36
62
13
0
0
70
143
39
0
0
106
205
52
0.0%
0.0%
51.7%
100.0%
25.4%
0
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
0
0
90
233
47
:kingham
507
63
7
134
40
0
0
235
986
481
district Totals
583
69
9
185
48
0
0
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
0
0
61
289
112
ry
413
27
6
40
5
0
0
166
657
195
District Totals
585
34
13
78
9
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
89
270
69
tidolph
212
11
10
162
90
0
0
146
631
146
District Totals
281
14
15
257
99
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
110
315
99
>ore
149
10
8
164
12
0
0
223
566
154
ihmond
158
11
10
196
34
0
0
174
583
98
District Totals
384
43
26
456
48
0
0
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
0
0
193
370
83
ion
111
29
4
141
14
0
0
175
474
198
District Totals
180
30
15
232
19
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
131
183
11
Davidson
132
11
10
101
18
0
0
376
648
106
Davie
50
1
1
19
0
0
0
83
154
18
Iredell
109
21
7
70
15
0
0
463
685
39
District Totals
306
35
27
214
35
0
0
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
0
0
6
2
0
0
33
48
6
Ashe
9
4
2
10
0
0
0
37
62
4
Wilkes
55
5
22
27
29
0
0
236
374
9
Yadkin
54
5
3
15
7
0
0
58
142
46
District Totals
125
14
27
58
38
0
0
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
0
1
21
0
0
0
10
47
0
Madison
13
1
1
15
1
0
0
9
40
5
Mitchell
9
0
5
6
0
0
0
6
26
4
Watauga
21
2
17
33
0
0
0
48
121
18
Yancey
11
0
2
29
1
0
0
3
46
5
District Totals
69
3
26
104
2
0
0
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
0
0
265
812
86
Caldwell
230
15
6
212
33
0
0
224
720
192
District Totals
530
51
19
378
65
0
0
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
0
0
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
0
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
0
0
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
0
1
0
101
225
4
Koln
35
2
6
50
1
0
0
104
198
20
District Totals
90
9
13
104
1
1
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
154
342
112
cDowell
103
1
9
29
4
0
3
92
241
72
ilk
23
2
4
11
0
0
0
28
68
3
itherford
327
14
18
137
57
0
0
299
852
114
ansylvania
39
4
3
27
3
0
0
27
103
35
District Totals
590
28
40
257
88
0
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
0
0
4
103
0
ay
13
1
0
8
2
0
0
3
27
1
raham
45
6
0
29
0
0
0
2
82
35
aeon
32
3
4
36
10
0
0
6
91
4
vain
7
7
2
9
2
0
0
14
41
15
District Totals
146
22
11
105
31
0
0
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
0
0
84
371
171
ckson
26
2
3
33
0
0
0
32
96
39
District Totals
135
23
34
124
35
0
0
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
0.0%
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
0.0%
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
0.0%
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
0.0%
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
0.0%
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
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
0.0%
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
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
0.0%
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
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
0
0
0
2
0
3
402.7
573.0
Mis
1
4
3
9
8
0
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
0
13
3
0
1
26
145.5
157.0
Mis
12
1
2
8
2
0
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
0
0
140
81.1
66.0
Hyde
Fel
6
2
5
0
2
0
15
135.3
94.0
Mis
5
0
4
1
0
0
10
87.3
98.0
Martin
Fel
55
13
15
17
3
0
103
113.2
83.0
Mis
30
10
6
21
3
0
70
143.3
110.0
Tyrrell
Fel
8
0
5
0
0
0
13
76.9
46.0
Mis
16
4
9
2
0
0
31
86.6
61.0
Washington
Fel
18
19
37
20
0
0
94
131.9
130.0
Mis
29
6
7
10
0
0
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
0
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
0
0
12
2
0
45
123.5
61.0
Mis
5
0
6
2
1
0
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
0
0
0
101
96.5
94.0
Mis
7
1
7
0
0
0
15
104.5
94.0
Jones
Fel
8
0
5
0
0
0
13
86.9
38.0
Mis
2
0
2
0
1
0
5
194.4
159.0
Sampson
Fel
67
21
13
6
0
1
108
83.0
66.0
Mis
22
2
5
3
0
0
32
77.8
74.0
District Totals
Fel
119
50
46
6
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
0
0
20
63.5
65.0
Mis
11
4
4
2
6
5
32
338.6
148.0
Hertford
Fel
39
0
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
0
9
11
0
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
0
13
4
0
41
189.4
101.0
Mis
21
1
4
7
1
0
34
96.9
61.5
Lenoir
Fel
102
12
19
31
22
5
191
167.1
73.0
Mis
154
1
45
27
12
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
111
111.1
79.0
Lee
Fel
97
15
3
12
9
1
137
109.1
67.0
Mis
41
12
5
4
0
0
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
0
258
65.5
25.0
Mis
57
3
5
9
6
1
81
103.3
46.0
Brunswick
Fel
54
157
25
19
16
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
227
147.4
122.0
Mis
15
0
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
0
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
0
46
25
4
1
173
131.7
90.0
Mis
33
0
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
0
0
33
70.7
46.0
Mis
31
3
7
3
0
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
0
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
0
249
75.9
55.0
Mis
135
13
15
18
5
0
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
0
74
118.2
76.5
Davidson
Fel
147
27
25
26
4
0
229
98.6
79.0
Mis
84
12
19
15
7
0
137
100.3
44.0
Davie
Fel
8
5
15
3
0
0
31
129.3
143.0
Mis
33
4
3
2
2
0
44
87.4
67.0
Iredell
Fel
149
188
91
89
10
0
527
128.0
100.0
Mis
161
40
78
18
11
0
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
0
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
0
2
3
6
0
24
214.3
77.0
Mis
10
0
0
11
3
0
24
229.6
252.5
ishe
Fel
8
0
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
0
144
127.6
95.0
radkin
Fel
32
3
1
4
1
1
42
100.6
59.0
Mis
25
6
5
15
1
0
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
0
4
o
0
24
67
390.6
76.0
Mis
21
0
2
4
2
4
33
198.2
66.0
ladison
Fel
44
2
10
3
6
5
70
174.7
38.0
Mis
11
0
3
1
0
0
15
80.5
45.0
Mitchell
Fel
25
28
1
9
5
1
69
155.3
109.0
Mis
5
0
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
rancey
Fel
0
17
4
2
2
1
26
175.1
111.0
Mis
5
0
1
8
0
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
13
32
14
5
111
254.3
150.0
Mis
26
1
3
9
6
0
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
0
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
0
•4
2
15
2
59
194.1
62.0
Mis
26
0
3
2
2
5
38
204.6
80.0
Clay
Fel
15
3
1-1
0
0
0
$2
89.9
103.0
Mis
4
2
1
(i
1
0
8
141.3
99.5
Graham
Fel
2
0
4
3
3
0
14
347.9
303.0
Mis
7
2
5
3
0
2
19
233.4
139.0
Macon
Fel
11
1
6
18
5
0
41
222.3
255.0
Mis
25
0
S
2
2
(1
37
94.9
45.0
Swain
Fel
28
1
0
5
2
0
36
99.4
40.0
Mis
7
2
0
0
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
0
6
3
2
11
35
439.3
132.0
Mis
20
1
4
1
0
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
2
1
1
26
116.6
55.0
Mis
34
8
5
16
0
0
63
109.6
83.0
Chowan
Fel
68
10
2}
18
115
1
235
289.4
323.0
Mis
51
21
33
27
7
0
139
137.4
120.0
Currituck
Fel
21
5
5
7
4
0
42
136.5
89.0
Mis
82
31
18
8
8
0
147
108.6
81.0
Dare
Fel
99
27
101
137
17
1
382
177.2
152.0
Mis
212
35
68
92
23
0
430
133.8
97.0
Gates
Fel
41
5
28
22
0
0
96
136.1
130.0
Mis
37
13
23
16
8
0
97
143.7
113.0
Pasquotank
Fel
147
50
41
95
23
0
356
154.0
111.0
Mis
264
87
86
89
27
1
554
124.5
97.0
Perquimans
Fel
19
7
8
14
7
0
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
0
483
117.4
91.0
Mis
253
76
54
39
13
0
435
97.6
77.0
Hyde
Fel
4
1
8
16
1
0
30
193.0
220.0
Mis
8
0
9
9
0
0
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
0
0
47
113.3
109.0
Mis
39
8
8
7
1
0
63
103.4
83.0
Washington
Fel
66
15
26
28
4
0
139
118.9
97.0
Mis
71
17
5
5
2
0
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
0
575
65.9
33.0
Pamlico
Fel
94
9
30
11
0
5
149
125.7
89.0
Mis
17
1
1
3
0
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
0
0
104
63.2
48.5
Jones
Fel
41
0
9
14
0
0
64
95.3
74.0
Mis
13
2
1
0
0
0
16
55.0
70.5
Sampson
Fel
456
81
113
55
8
1
714
80.5
56.0
Mis
84
11
6
5
1
0
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
0
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
0
0
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
0
443
73.1
40.0
Mis
92
19
14
1
0
0
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
0
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
0
140
108.9
74.0
Mis
27
5
4
12
6
0
54
147.8
99.5
Hertford
Fel
155
24
38
48
53
1
319
160.5
96.0
Mis
35
6
15
19
13
0
88
177.0
129.0
Northampton
Fel
185
11
13
47
8
0
264
108.2
48.0
Mis
47
5
10
9
3
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
114
138.6
94.0
Mis
51
7
18
12
5
0
93
115.4
87.0
Lenoir
Fel
306
81
91
100
29
0
607
117.3
86.0
Mis
197
39
77
71
7
0
391
111.2
90.0
District Totals
Fcl
359
97
105
122
38
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
325
79.3
48.0
Lee
Fel
292
37
24
28
10
0
391
83.6
55.0
Mis
147
35
24
26
2
0
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
0
259
126.7
102.0
Mis
86
34
28
48
17
0
213
145.3
106.0
Brunswick
Fel
176
32
52
102
38
12
412
196.5
119.0
Mis
81
21
30
28
8
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
66
137.4
82.0
Orange
Fel
252
100
89
93
26
0
560
127.2
98.0
Mis
108
17
24
15
1
0
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
0
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
0
290
94.4
72.0
Mis
34
5
11
11
1
0
62
98.9
75.5
Scotland
Fel
211
85
43
102
22
4
467
134.9
103.0
Mis
53
19
21
39
11
0
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
0
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
0
0
130
100.2
91.0
Mis
143
33
37
15
5
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
398
108.5
58.0
Mis
153
44
53
31
8
0
289
107.3
83.0
Surry
Fel
478
130
130
60
5
2
805
91.9
70.0
Mis
418
95
86
57
1
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
758
119.7
80.5
Mis
436
48
58
96
10
0
648
89.4
43.0
Davie
Fel
31
19
10
12
0
0
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
0
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
0
93
128.3
97.0
Mis
77
12
28
20
5
0
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
0
47
155.7
98.0
Vladison
Fel
53
2
21
19
11
0
106
162.6
97.0
Mis
22
5
7
6
0
0
40
92.4
83.0
Mitchell
Fel
22
0
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
0
121
135.1
95.0
Yancey
Fel
10
2
12
22
8
0
54 i
229.1
203.0
Mis
4
1
2
32
7
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
31
149.5
156.0
Mis
8
10
3
4
2
0
27
145.4
104.0
Graham
Fel
IS
1
57
17
6
1
100
190.4
157.0
Mis
28
8
2X
16
2
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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 6Q5,286
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
radkin
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
0
3
2
Dom
0
3
2
Chowan
Gen
0
13
15
Dom
0
80
13
Currituck
Gen
I)
8
33
Dom
0
58
14
Dare
Gen
1
7
84
Dom
0
173
26
Gates
Gen
1
0
2
Dom
0
20
10
Pasquotank
Gen
0
9
37
Dom
0
190
19
Perquimans
Gen
0
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
0
262
16
Hyde
Gen
0
7
12
Dom
0
25
8
Martin
Gen
1
23
19
Dom
0
114
12
Tyrrell
Gen
0
0
7
Dom
0
1
0
Washington
Gen
1
7
19
Dom
0
85
5
District Totals
Gen
4
56
102
% of Total
1.1%
14.7%
26.8%
Dom
0
487
41
% of Total
0.0%
39.8%
3.3%
;ment
Total
ut Trial
Clerk
Other
Disposed
2
4
3
14
19
0
0
24
0
25
1
54
96
0
9
198
22
23
3
89
16
0
0
88
35
154
13
294
42
1
2
244
0
7
3
13
40
0
7
77
8
78
17
149
84
0
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
0
0
60
3
33
4
83
157
0
8
291
1
13
0
21
44
0
1
46
1
45
0
73
108
0
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
0
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
0
62
7
43
0
10
122
Pitt
Gen
2
149
234
15
314
135
849
Dom
0
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
0
218
23
245
1
0
487
Jones
Gen
0
5
12
2
17
4
40
Dom
0
70
7
59
0
1
137
Onslow
Gen
5
136
260
21
162
155
739
Dom
0
1,335
115
187
2
194
1,833
Sampson
Gen
1
39
124
19
120
. 7
310
Dom
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
310
20
732
0
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
0
98
23
216
1
9
347
Hertford
Gen
0
30
22
5
31
10
98
Dom
0
250
29
84
3
46
412
Northampton
Gen
1
9
25
6
16
1
58
Dom
0
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
0
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
0
346
90
382
1
28
847
Nash
Gen
1
77
157
85
324
5
649
Dom
0
717
39
361
1
7
1,125
Wilson
Gen
2
55
122
68
188
8
443
Dom
0
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
0
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
0
13
7
4
20
8
52
Dom
0
64
7
85
0
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
0
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
0
13
57
10
76
1
157
Dom
0
135
38
243
7
2
425
Granville
Gen
2
11
36
26
47
17
139
Dom
0
146
28
216
0
11
412
Person
Gen
0
15
44
15
52
1
127
Dom
0
191
38
79
7
13
328
Vance
Gen
0
45
89
6
130
16
286
Dom
0
252
47
207
0
16
522
Warren
Gen
1
8
19
23
28
4
83
Dom
0
74
11
143
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
876
-
Dom
0
355
64
277
0
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
0
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
0
45
91
Dom
0
179
31
Brunswick
Gen
3
81
201
Dom
0
327
81
Columbus
Gen
16
93
160
Dom
0
347
116
District Totals
Gen
19
219
452
% of Total
1.4%
16.7%
34.5%
Dom
0
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
0
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
0
747
110
% of Total
0.0%
60.0%
8.8%
District 15B
Chatham
Gen
0
10
37
Dom
0
141
29
Orange
Gen
0
155
184
Dom
0
512
33
District Totals
Gen
0
165
221
% of Total
0.0%
24.7%
33.1%
Dom
0
653
62
% of Total
0.0%
60.6%
5.8%
District 16A
Hoke
Gen
0
25
42
Dom
0
158
34
Scotland
Gen
0
26
72
Dom
0
204
44
District Totals
Gen
0
51
114
% of Total
0.0%
13.9%
31.1%
Dom
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
147
178
16
437
2
780
% of Total
0.0%
18.8%
22.8%
2.1%
56.0%
0.3%
100.0%
Dom
0
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
0
118
7
76
0
15
216
Rockingham
Gen
1
58
107
14
337
54
571
Dom
1
495
79
316
0
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
0
100
1,192
% of Total
0.1%
51.4%
7.2%
32.9%
0.0%
8.4%
100.0%
District 17B
Stokes
Gen
0
14
26
6
49
3
98
Dom
0
145
26
76
3
8
258
Surry
Gen
i
24
175
53
212
13
478
Dom
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
55
84
3
123
34
299
Dom
0
232
49
3
1
26
311
Randolph
Gen
7
63
130
52
266
21
539
Dom
1
550
51
277
0
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
0
6
40
13
48
19
126
Dom
0
100
42
154
1
11
308
Moore
Gen
1
90
132
18
135
13
389
Dom
0
318
37
213
1
11
580
Richmond
Gen
1
19
95
12
131
30
288
Dom
0
311
50
291
4
70
726
Stanly
Gen
0
88
224
6
227
51
596
Dom
0
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
0
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
0
16
277
Davidson
Gen
2
70
168
52
319
37
648
Dom
0
673
98
515
3
52
1,341
Davie
Gen
2
18
45
3
34
5
107
Dom
0
169
25
69
0
4
267
Iredell
Gen
4
114
324
39
448
69
998
Dom
0
574
74
488
0
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
0
6
17
10
15
7
55
Dom
0
66
20
27
1
4
118
Ashe
Gen
3
22
23
11
37
4
100
Dom
0
120
24
61
0
1
206
Wilkes
Gen
2
124
169
5
650
30
980
Dom
0
465
48
96
3
35
647
Yadkin
Gen
3
22
55
24
72
9
185
Dom
1
137
17
116
0
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
0
12
45
6
44
14
121
Dom
0
62
12
23
0
14
111
Madison
Gen
0
0
12
9
18
0
39
Dom
1
78
24
50
0
7
160
Mitchell
Gen
0
14
39
10
56
3
122
Dom
0
62
11
41
0
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
0
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
0
25
931
Caldwell
Gen
0
69
122
59
219
2
471
Dom
0
556
40
246
0
13
855
Catawba
Gen
5
39
267
221
562
90
1,184
Dom
0
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
0
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
0
25
46
8
96
24
199
Dom
0
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
0
57
69
6
127
21
280
Dom
0
458
16
168
1
2
645
Transylvania
Gen
1
11
31
34
48
7
132
Dom
0
115
32
94
0
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
0
21
25
16
69
21
152
Dom
0
99
23
50
1
21
194
Clay
Gen
0
1
15
18
27
3
64
Dom
0
0
6
40
0
1
47
Graham
Gen
0
7
13
4
19
4
47
Dom
0
43
5
6
0
0
54
Haywood
Gen
5
32
82
39
134
14
306
Dom
1
354
46
149
6
5
561
Jackson
Gen
0
6
51
42
57
16
172
Dom
0
14
27
190
1
27
259
Macon
Gen
1
12
36
15
35
11
110
Dom
0
135
20
57
1
1
214
Swain
Gen
1
3
13
18
15
5
55
Dom
0
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
0.0%
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
0.0%
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
0.0%
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
0
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
0.0%
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
0
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%
0
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
0.0%
130
102.5
73.0
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
0.0%
37
105.9
65.0
Clay
17
94.4%
0
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
0.0%
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
0.0%
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
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
owan
0
1
20
21
0
0
0
2
rrituck
0
4
20
24
0
0
0
0
re
0
0
57
57
0
4
4
0
tes
0
11
4
15
0
0
0
0
squotank
0
32
84
116
0
1
1
10
rquimans
0
0
4
4
0
1
1
5
District Totals
0
40
191
240
0
6
6
17
strict 2
aufort
0
23
59
82
3
2
5
11
-de
0
0
9
9
0
0
0
4
irtin
0
20
35
55
1
1
2
12
rrell
0
4
9
13
0
0
0
0
ashington
0
3
16
19
0
0
0
3
District Totals
0
50
128
178
4
3
7
30
strict 3
irteret
0
58
99
157
1
12
13
12
aven
0
91
220
311
1
19
20
20
mlico
0
4
3
7
0
0
0
0
tt
0
179
184
363
4
0
4
37
District Totals
0
332
506
838
6
31
37
69
strict 4
iplin
0
20
32
52
0
7
7
4
nes
0
2
2
4
0
0
0
4
islow
0
132
297
429
15
11
26
36
mpson
0
7
20
27
0
2
2
0
District Totals
0
161
351
512
15
20
35
44
strict 5
:w Hanover
0
417
463
880
0
73
73
5
nder
0
34
27
61
0
6
6
21
District Totals
0
451
490
941
0
79
79
26
strict 6A
alifax
0
88
125
213
0
5
5
2
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
23
13
8
3
2
37
26
10
11
6
88
90
0
0
1
16
7
20
9
5
161
82
5
0
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
0
1
0
14
8
1
0
2
25
9
142
19
4
7
212
70
34
13
9
407
107
4
0
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
0
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
0
41
iO
51
0
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
0
0
0
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
0
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
0
211
184
395
8
159
167
22
strict 15B
latham
0
8
31
39
0
0
0
21
ange
0
68
06
164
0
6
6
12
District Totals
0
76
127
203
0
6
6
33
strict 16A
ake
0
28
54
82
7
0
7
14
:otland
0
100
120
220
1
5
6
2
District Totals
0
128
174
302
S
5
13
16
(strict 16B
)beson
1
273
263
537
42
109
151
18
istrict 17A
aswell
0
2
21
23
1
4
5
0
ockingham
0
122
133
255
3
25
28
14
District Totals
0
124
154
278
4
29
33
14
istrict 17B
okes
0
55
59
114
0
11
11
19
any
0
56
44
100
0
12
12
1
District Totals
0
111
103
214
0
23
23
20
istrict 18
uilford
6
493
715
1,214
70
179
249
138
istrict 19A
abarms
0
76
82
158
8
31
39
6
istrict 19B
Montgomery
0
33
36
69
2
5
7
4
andolph
0
115
243
358
16
109
125
25
District Totals
0
148
279
427
18
114
132
29
istrict 19C
owan
0
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
0
0
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 0
23 17
33 13
18 4
69 19
146 53
Other
Misde-
Capita!
Felony
meanor
Total
Truancy
Other Total D<
■pende
District 20
Anson
0
1
25
26
0
1
1
0
Moore
0
36
57
93
0
2
2
12
Richmond
0
07
115
212
0
6
6
7
Stanly
0
17
91
108
0
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
0
378
488
866
0
268
268
88
District 22
Alexander
0
5
16
21
1
9
10
9
Davidson
0
116
169
285
3
44
47
44
Davie
0
12
44
56
5
8
13
5
Iredell
0
91
91
182
4
73
77
9
District Totals
0
224
320
544
13
134
147
67
District 23
Alleghany
0
4
22
26
4
6
10
9
Ashe
0
20
41
61
8
3
11
2
Wilkes
0
64
195
259
37
52
89
58
Yadkin
0
22
177
199
12
39
51
25
District Totals
0
110
435
545
61
100
161
94
District 24
Avery
0
16
31
47
55
8
63
2
Madison
0
7
11
18
7
20
27
14
Mitchell
0
7
13
20
13
5
18
2
Watauga
0
53
41
94
1
23
24
4
Yancey
0
1
6
7
12
12
24
7
District Totals
0
84
102
186
88
68
156
29
District 25
Burke
0
22
53
75
17
34
51
42
Caldwell
0
62
47
109
13
42
55
32
Catawba
0
145
173
318
8
64
72
45
District Totals
0
229
273
502
38
140
178
119
District 26
Mecklenburg
0
827
1,724
2,551
6
392
398
38
District 27A
Gaston
0
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
0
86
27
92
15
12
525
152
84
12
7
378
81
290
12
2
3
129
53
22
18
0
99
49
3
3
0
46
29
5
3
6
136
55
11
2
0
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
0
25
4
13
8
18
137
98
20
5
10
190
65
1
0
1
18
15
67
3
23
247
95
13
0
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
0
3
13
12
14
0
2
3
76
46
14
4
6
5
3
79
59
26
18
6
7
2
6
3
11
2
2
0
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
>
0
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
0
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
<
=
0
<
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
0
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
0
<
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
0
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
0
z
—
<
fa
0
-
<
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
Morthampton
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
0
3
0
0
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
0
0
0
0
27
31.3
20.0
Pasquotank
368
32
19
5
1
1
426
45.7
33.0
Perquimans
61
6
2
2
2
0
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
0
3
6
0
0
55
48.6
18.0
Martin
181
13
9
3
4
1
211
53.7
26.0
Tyrrell
29
3
1
0
0
0
33
27.9
19.0
Washington
59
0
0
3
0
0
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
0
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
0
588
57.4
40.0
Jones
45
12
6
6
0
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
1,263
67.6
38.0
Lee
638
75
60
46
5
0
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
0
695
49.7
32.0
Columbus
462
23
34
22
0
0
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
0
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
0
0
3
0
0
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
0
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
0
0
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
0
0
351
38.3
27.0
Union
536
19
35
53
9
0
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
0
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
0
370
57.6
40.0
Davidson
1,468
57
86
13
0
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
0
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
0
2
1
88
50.2
16.0
Graham
85
8
3
30
6
0
132
108.2
27.0
Haywood
279
41
22
38
6
0
386
74.3
40.0
Jackson
133
12
8
2
1
1
157
52.3
23.0
Macon
112
2
9
0
6
0
129
64.2
37.0
Swain
60
6
4
6
0
0
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
0
13
0
0
204
45.0
27.0
Chowan
981
32
25
14
14
0
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
0
0
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
0
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
0
512
28.9
18.0
Martin
1,726
17
18
44
31
8
1,844
36.8
13.0
Tyrrell
296
9
8
2
0
0
315
31.8
22.0
Washington
909
21
11
9
6
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
0
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
0
2,192
61.4
34.5
Davidson
11,024
825
391
158
13
0
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
0
0
509
48.6
30.0
Ashe
1,147
17
18
20
0
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
0
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
0
516
74.2
42.5
Watauga
2,281
199
209
141
10
0
2,840
55.6
33.0
Yancey
459
46
52
42
8
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
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
0
464
69.2
41.0
Haywood
2,340
148
148
113
8
0
2,757
48.4
28.0
Jackson
954
39
31
21
6
0
1,051
43.3
28.0
Macon
684
53
25
35
26
2
825
60.9
28.0
Swain
464
12
13
12
1
0
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.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11