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

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

Xi3 



i.Z, 



^nrtif (Eamltna (Exmrte 



ibbubz 




N.C. DOCUME 

CLEARINGHOUSE 



3 1997 



OF NOPFTH CAROUN; 

lALEIGH 



JVnnual ^Report 
of tije 



tiUL ;? J?94 



The Cover: The Buncombe County Courthouse in Asheville, North Carolina, was 
completed in 1928. It was the last North Carolina courthouse designed by renowned 
architect Frank P. Milburn, who designed many public buildings in North Carolina 
and throughout the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The building's 
complex setbacks, window groupings, and extravagant overlay of Neo-Classical 
Revival ornament produce one of the most individualized courthouses of the 1920's, 
when courthouses were characterized by simple massing and conservative classical 
ornament. The entrance is set behind a monumental three-story pavilion with Doric 
columns. Magnificent bronze doors open into the lobby, which presents one of the 
most elegant Neo-Classical interiors in the State, with a sweeping marble stair, bronze 
and glass screens, a coffered ceiling with ornate polychrome plaster work, and a mosaic 
tile floor. 



Buncombe County, bisected by the Blue Ridge Parkway in the Appalachian 
Mountains, was formed in 1791 from Burke and Rutherford Counties and was named 
for Colonel Edward Buncombe of the Revolutionary Army. 



NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 



1991-92 




am: 



APR 3 1997 
JIUBBABY OF HOffm CAROLINA 



ANNUAL REPORT 



of the 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 







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-sixth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year July 1, 
1991 —June 30, 1992. 

Fiscal year 1991-92 marks the eighth consecutive year with significant increases in filings and 
dispositions in the Superior Courts. During 1991-92, as compared to 1990-91, total case filings in Superior 
Court increased by 8.7% and dispositions increased by 7.3%. In District Court, total case filings increased 
by 1 .8% and total dispositions increased by 2.3%. 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^j^JMl^^ 



Franklin Freeman, Jr. 
Director 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Part I 

The 1991-92 Judicial Year in Review 

North Carolina Judicial Branch Fact Sheet 1 

The 1991-92 Judicial Year in Review 2 

Part II 

Court System Organization and Operations in 1991-92 

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 

Trial Court Administrators 49 

Public Defenders 51 

Appellate Defender 53 

The Administrative Office of the Courts 54 

Juvenile Services Division 56 

Office of Guardian ad Litem Services 58 

Community Penalties Program 60 

Court-Ordered Arbitration 62 

Child Custody and Visitation Mediation 65 

The North Carolina Courts Commission 67 

The Judicial Standards Commission 69 

Part III 
Court Resources in 1991-92 

Judicial Department Finances 

Appropriations 73 

Expenditures 76 

Receipts 78 

Distribution of Receipts 79 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 82 

Judicial Department Personnel 90 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1991-92 

Trial Courts Case Data 93 

Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 97 

District Court Division Caseflow Data 191 



Tables, Charts, and Graphs 



Part I 
The 1991-92 Judicial Year in Review 

North Carolina Judicial Branch Fact Sheet 



Part II 
Court System Organization and Operations in 1991-92 

Original Jurisdiction 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 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, 

1986-87—1991-92 24 

Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed, 

1986-87—1991-92 25 

Supreme Court, Processing Time for Disposed Appeals 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, 1986-87—1991-92 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 

Trial Court Administrators 49 

Public Defenders 51 

Office of the Appellate Defender 53 

Administrative Office of the Courts 54 

Juvenile Services Division — Chief Court Counselors 57 

Guardian ad Litem Division — District Administrators 59 

Community Penalties Programs 61 

Summary of Arbitration Activity 63 

Child Custody and Visitation Mediation Activity 66 

The North Carolina Courts Commission 67 

The Judicial Standards Commission 69 



Tables, Charts, and Graphs 

Part III 
Court Resources in 1991-92 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 73 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 74 

General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of the 

Judicial Department and All State Agencies, 1985-86 — 1991-92 75 

Judicial Department Expenditures, 1991-92 76 

Judicial Department Expenditures, 1991-92 and 1985-86 — 1991-92 77 

Judicial Department Receipts 78 

Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 79 

Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the 

Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 80 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 83 

State Mental Health Hospital Commitment Hearings 84 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian ad Litem Cases and Expenditures 85 

Judicial Department Personnel 90 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1991-92 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends 98 

Superior Courts, Caseload 99 

Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 100 

Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Trends 101 

Superior Courts, Civil Case Filings By Case-Type 102 

Superior Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory, By District and County 103 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition 108 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, By District and County 109 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Pending, By District and County 116 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Disposed, By District and County 121 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 126 

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

By District and County 127 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases 132 

Superior Courts, Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions By Case-Type 133 

Superior Courts, Caseload Inventory for Criminal Cases, By District and County 134 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies 141 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies, By District and County 142 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors 151 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors, By District and County 152 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Pending, By District and County 161 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Disposed, By District and County 175 

District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 193 

District Courts, Caseload Trends 194 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 195 

District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Cases 196 



in 



Tables, Charts, and Graphs 

District Courts. Civil Non-Magistrate Filings By Case-Type 197 

District Courts. Civil Caseload Inventory, By District and County 198 

District Courts. Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 204 

District Courts. Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, 

By District and County 205 

District Courts. Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Pending, 

By District and County 215 

District Courts. Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Disposed, 

By District and County 220 

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

Cases Pending, By District and County 225 

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

Cases Disposed, By District and County 230 

District Courts, Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions, 

By District and County 235 

District Courts, Matters Alleged in Juvenile Petitions, 

By District and County 238 

District Courts, Adjudicatory Hearings For Juvenile Matters, 

By District and County 243 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Infraction 

and Criminal Cases 250 

District Courts, Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions, 

By District and County 25 1 

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

By District and County 256 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 261 

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

By District and County 262 

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

By District and County 268 

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

By District and County 274 

District Courts, Infraction Case Filings and Dispositions, 

By District and County 280 



IV 



PARTI 



THE 1991-1992 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL BRANCH FACT SHEET 
Fiscal Year July 1, 1991 — June 30, 1992 



Population and Area Served: 



6,800,000 Population (approximate) 
100 Counties 



Court Organization: 



44 Superior Court Districts for Administrative Purposes 

60 Superior Court Districts for Elective Purposes 

38 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 


77 


267 


Assistant District Attorneys 


12 


100 


Clerks of Superior Court 


385 


,788 


Clerk Personnel 


81 


653 


Magistrates 


192 


11 


Public Defenders 


636 



Assistant Public Defenders 
Trial Court Administrators 
Juvenile Services Personnel 
Guardian Ad Litem Personnel 
Administrative Office of the Courts 
Other Staff 



Total Judicial Branch Personnel: 



4,520 



BUDGET 



Total Judicial Branch Appropriations, 1991-92: 
Percent Increase from 1990-91: 

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



$215,113,968 

4.62% 

2.96% 



CASES FILED AND DISPOSED, FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 


- 










% Change 
from 






% Change 
from 


Court 








Filed 


1990-91 


Disposed 




1990-91 


Supreme Court: 


















Appeals 








181 


-4.2% 


181 




4.6% 


Petitions 








388 


-21.1% 


396 




-20.5% 


Court of Appeals: 


















Appeals 








1,304 


-1.6% 


1,099 




-22.3% 


Petitions 








356 


-14.2% 


352 




-15.2% 


Superior Court*: 








246,487 


6.3% 


227,906 




4.5% 


District Court**: 








2,294,688 


1.8% 


2,225,905 




2.3% 


*Includes Felonies, Misd 


:meanors. 


Civi 


, Estates 


and Special Proceedings. 








**Includes Criminal Non- 


vlotor Vel 


licle. 


Criminal Motor Vehicle. 


nfractions, Small Claims, 


Domestic Relations 


. General Civil 


and Magistrate Appeals 


Transfers 


, and Civil License Revocations 


(Civil License Revocations are counted only 


at filing). 



THE 1991-92 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. 1991. and ended June 30. 1992." 

The Workload of the Courts 

Case tilings in the Supreme Court during 1991-92 
totaled 181. compared with 189 filings during 1990-91. A 
total of 3S8 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court. 
compared with 492 in 1990-91. and 70 petitions were 
allowed, compared with 53 in 1990-91. 

For the Court of Appeals, 1,304 appealed cases were 
filed during 1991-92. compared with 1,325 during 1990- 
91. Petitions filed in 1991-92 totaled 356, compared with 
415 in 1990-91. 

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 8.7% to a total of 147,219 in 1991-92, 
compared with 135,419 in 1990-91. Felony case filings in 
superior court increased by 11,840 cases (16.0%), from 
73.908 in 1990-91 to 85,748 in 1991-92. Superior court 
case dispositions increased by 7.3% to a total of 1 38,7 1 1 , 
compared with 129,302 in 1990-91. Because case filings 
during the year exceeded case dispositions, the total 
number of cases pending at the end of the year increased 
by 8.508. 

Not including juvenile proceedings and mental health 
hospital commitment hearings, the statewide total of 
district court filings (civil and criminal) during 1991-92 
was 2.294,688, an increase of 41,340 cases (1.8%) from 
1990-91 filings of 2,253,348 cases. During 1991-92, a 
total of 693.396 infraction cases were filed along with a 
total of 493,342 criminal motor vehicle cases, for a 
combined total of 1,186,738 cases. This combined total is 
an increase of 41,036 cases (3.6%) from the 1,145,702 
motor vehicle and infraction cases filed during 1990-91. 
During 1991-92, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle 
cases in the district courts increased by 19,303 cases 
(3.2%) to 629,589, compared with 610,286 filed during 
1 990-9 1 . Filings of civil magistrate (small claims) cases in 
the district courts decreased by 18,920 cases (6.8%), to 
260,289 during 1991-92 compared with 279,209 during 
1990-91. Domestic relations case filings in the district 
courts increased by 9.2%, from 85,331 in 1990-91 to 
93.224 in 1991-92. Total dispositions in district court 
increased by 2.3%, from 2,175,869 in 1990-91 to 
2,225,905 in 1991-92. 

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 counties, and for the judicial and prosecutorial 
districts. 

Budget Reductions 

Reductions in spending have been necessary through- 
out state government due to the state's fiscal condition in 
recent years. The reductions were felt acutely in fiscal 
year 1991-92. Reductions totaling some $11.1 million 
were necessary in the Judicial Department's continuation 



budget for fiscal 1991-92 (enacted in 1991). Cuts were 
made in operational areas affecting jury fees, travel, 
supplies, equipment, training, and contractual services 
for emergency judges, per diem assistant district attor- 
neys, per diem assistant public defenders, contract court 
reporters, and other temporary personnel needs. 

In addition, in order for the Judicial Branch to meet 
necessary reductions in its continuation budget for 1991- 
92, some 69.6 positions were eliminated. (All of these 
positions were either vacant or unfilled. Most were new 
positions scheduled to go into effect in April 1991, and 
thus had not been filled when the 1991 Session of the 
General Assembly was considering the budget for the 
1991-92 fiscal year.) The lost positions included the 
following: 15.6 deputy clerk positions; 9 magistrate 
positions; 3 judicial secretary/ administrative assistant 
positions; 5 court reporter positions; 5 secretary and 4 
victim-witness assistant positions for district attorney 
offices; 2 assistant public defender, 2 secretary, and 1 
paralegal position for public defender offices; 8 court 
counselor and 5 secretary positions for juvenile services 
offices; 1 arbitration coordinator position, 1 indigency 
screener position; and 8 positions within the Adminis- 
trative Office of the Courts. 

New positions were authorized by the 1992 Session of 
the General Assembly for the upcoming 1992-93 fiscal 
year, as summarized in the following "Legislative High- 
lights" section. These make important progress toward 
recovery in meeting the needs of Judicial Branch 
operations. 

Legislative Highlights, 1992 Session 

Court Costs and Fees Increased 

The 1992 General Assembly increased court costs in 
civil, criminal, and infraction cases in superior and district 
courts, and in estates and special proceedings. Court 
costs for support of the General Court of Justice were 
increased by four dollars. Certain fees in estate cases 
were increased by five dollars (relating to filing accounts 
of additional gross estate and accounts for personalty 
received by a trust under a will). Facilities fees were 
increased by one dollar. Facilities fees are paid to coun- 
ties, or to municipalities that provide seats of district 
court, to assist them in meeting the expense of providing 
court facilities. (Chapter 811, amending G.S. 7A-304(a), 
G.S. 7A-305(a), G.S. 7A-306, and G.S. 7A-307(a) and 
(b), effective July 1, 1992.) 

Increase in Mandatory Retirement Age for Judges 

The mandatory retirement age for superior court 
judges and district court judges was increased from age 
seventy to age seventy-two, making it uniform with what 
has long been the mandatory retirement age for appellate 
court justices and judges. This amendment marks the 
first change in the mandatory retirement age for trial or 
appellate judges and justices since court reform was 
enacted in the mid-1960s. (Chapter 873, amending G.S. 
7A-4.20 and G.S. 135-57(b), effective July 7, 1992.) 



THE 1991-92 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



Jurisdiction of Clerks and Magistrates 

State park and recreation area rule offenses and 
certain "simple" littering offenses were added to the list 
of misdemeanors and infractions for which clerks and 
magistrates may accept written appearances, waivers of 
trial or hearing, and pleas of guilty or admissions of 
responsibility in accordance with the uniform schedule 
of fines and penalties promulgated by the Conference of 
Chief District Court Judges. With respect to state park 
and recreation area offenses, this represents an expansion 
of clerk and magistrate jurisdiction. With respect to the 
littering offenses, clerks and magistrates already have 
jurisdiction to accept guilty pleas; the amendments 
require the punishments to be in accordance with the 
uniform schedule of fines and penalties, where prior to 
the effective date of this legislation (July 15, 1992), judg- 
ments were entered as directed by the individual chief 
district court judge of each district. (Chapter 900, Section 
1 18, amending G.S. 7A-180 and G.S. 7A-273. Additional 
amendments to these sections and G.S. 7A-148(a) pro- 
vide for consistency between the authority of the Confer- 
ence of Chief District Court Judges to promulgate the 
uniform schedule, and the statutes that specify the corre- 
sponding jurisdiction of clerks and magistrates.) 

Child Custody Mediation and Nonbinding Arbitration 
Expanded 

The General Assembly authorized the Administrative 
Office of the Courts to use up to $75,000 of funds 
appropriated for fiscal 1992-93 to expand two alternative 
dispute resolution programs to additional districts or 
counties. The two programs are, first, under G.S. 7A- 
37.1, for mandatory nonbinding arbitration of civil 
actions involving claims of $15,000 or less, and second, 
under G.S. 7A-494, for mediation of disputes over the 
custodv or visitation of minor children. (Chapter 900, 
Section 1 14, effective July 1, 1992.) 

Community Penalties Budget Flexibility and Expansion 

From funds appropriated to the Judicial Department 
for the Community Penalties Program in 1992-93, the 
General Assembly authorized the Administrative Office 
of the Courts to allocate a total of $1,518,912 in any 
amounts among the existing local community penalties 
programs or to establish new programs. The same 
amount was allocated in last year's legislation for 1991- 
92, but the total last year was allocated among the 
programs by the legislation, without the flexibility 
authorized for 1992-93. In addition, the AOC was 
authorized to transfer funds for "similar allocation or 
use" from any other funds appropriated in the certified 
budget for 1992-93. (Chapter 900, Section 117, effective 
July 1, 1992.) 

Juvenile Law Changes 

Transfer to Superior Court for First Degree Murder 

A clarifying amendment to G.S. 7A-608 specifies that 



when a judge finds probable cause that a juvenile 
fourteen years of age or older committed a "Class A 
felony" (i.e., first degree murder), the judge must transfer 
the case to superior court where the juvenile will be tried 
as an adult. Prior to the amendment, G.S. 7A-608 
required such transfer for a "capital offense." However, 
under North Carolina law (as amended since the "capital 
offense" language in G.S. 7A-608 was first enacted), with 
limited exceptions a person under age seventeen cannot 
be sentenced to death. Thus, the amendment makes it 
clear that such transfer is required in all first degree 
murder cases, whether or not the death penalty is or may 
be sought in the case. In general, juveniles charged with 
crimes are processed non-criminally under the Juvenile 
Code; for felonies other than first degree murder, transfer 
of a juvenile age 14 or older to superior court is within 
the judge's discretion, not mandatory. (Chapter 842, 
effective October 1, 1992.) 

Action by Parents for Return of a Runaway 

Two changes were made to the law that allows the 
parent of a juvenile under age 1 8 to file a civil non-jury 
action in district court for an order requiring the child to 
return home. First, the amendments provide an alter- 
native venue, allowing the action to be filed in the county 
where the parent resides, in addition to the county where 
the child can be found. Second, appeals from these cases 
will be to the Court of Appeals, rather than to superior 
court. (Chapter 1031, amending G.S. 1 10-44.4, effective 
October 1, 1992.) 

School Attendance Law Expanded — 
"Undisciplined Juveniles" 

The compulsory school attendance law (G.S. 115C- 
378) was expanded to apply to children under age seven 
who are enrolled in public school grades kindergarten 
through two unless withdrawn from school. The law 
previously applied only to children age seven to sixteen. 
An additional amendment, to G.S. 1 15C-8 1(f)(2), re- 
quires a child enrolled in kindergarten and not withdrawn 
to attend. Since under the Juvenile Code an "undis- 
ciplined juvenile" includes one who is unlawfully absent 
from school, the amendments extend this juvenile court 
jurisdiction to six-year-olds (six is the minimum age at 
which a child may be found undisciplined under the 
Juvenile Code, G.S. 7A-523). (Chapter 769, effective 
October 1, 1992.) 

Commitment Following Not Guilty by Reason 
of Insanity 

The 1992 General Assembly amended the law, enacted 
in 1991, that requires immediate commitment to a mental 
health hospital of a person acquitted of a crime by reason 
of insanity. The amendments follow a 1992 U.S. Supreme 
Court decision in this area of the law. As amended, at 
hearings subsequent to the initial commitment, to gain 
release the committed person must prove either that he 
or she is no longer mentally ill or no longer dangerous to 



THE 1991-92 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



others. Prior to the amendments, the committed person 
had to prove both the absence ofdangerousness to others 
and. if that burden was met. the absence of mental illness 
or that confinement was no longer necessary. Additional 
amendments require the court to make a written record 
of the facts that support its findings, and make it clear 
that the District Attorney may represent the state's 
interest at the initial and all subsequent hearings. (Chap- 
ter 1034. amending G.S. 122C-268, 122C-268.1, and G.S. 
122C-2'6.1. effective July 24, 1992.) 

Increased Funding for Indigent Defense 

The cost for providing legal representation for indigent 
persons who have a right to a court-appointed lawyer 
continues to be one of the fastest growing components of 
the Judicial Department budget. The General Assembly 
increased funding for indigent defense by S3, 642, 673 for 
1992-93. including 52.369,249 for the Indigent Persons' 
Attorney Fee Fund, SI, 048,424 for the Special Capital 
Case Rehearing Fund, and S225.000 for additional needs 
of the Guardian ad Litem Volunteer and Contract 
Program. (Chapter 742, Sections 1, 2, and 7. These are 
expansion amounts; total indigent defense spending in 
1991-92 came to S33.7 million.) 

Interim Attorney Fee Payments in Extraordinary Cases 

In a capital or other extraordinary case pending in the 
superior court, amendments to G.S. 7A-458 authorize 
the presidingjudge to award an interim fee to an attorney 
appointed to represent an indigent person, thus compen- 
sating counsel for work pending final determination of 
the case in the trial court. In general, court-appointed 
attorneys are awarded fees by the presiding judge after 
final determination of the case. (Chapter 900, Section 
116. effective July 1, 1992.) 

Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission Extended 

In 1990, the General Assembly established a 23- 
member Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission to 
evaluate the state's sentencing laws and policies and 
make recommendations to the General Assembly 
regarding, in general, sentencing structures (guidelines 
or formulas judges would use to set sentences), correc- 
tions system needs, and community penalties strategies. 
The 1992 General Assembly extended the scheduled 
expiration of the Commission from July 1 , 1992, to July 
1. 1993. and directed that its final report on sentencing 
be provided to the 1993 rather than the 1992 Session of 
the General Assembly. The General Assembly also added 
a reporting requirement to the Commission's charge. If 
the Commission finds that its recommended sentencing 
structures would produce more prison and jail inmates 
than prisons and jails can hold, then the Commission is 
also to present a set of sentencing structures that would 
be consistent with prison and jail "standard operating 
capacity" (which includes prison space that will be built 
from the proceeds of recently approved bonds). The 
legislation also makes changes in the membership of the 



Commission, including to increase the size to 27 mem- 
bers. (Chapter 816, amending G.S. 164-37, -38, -43(c), 
and -42(d), effective July 1, 1992.) 

Prison Population 

The "prison cap" in G.S. 148-4.1 was raised, thus 
increasing the maximum number of prisoners that can 
be housed in the state prison system before the Parole 
Commission must reduce the prison population by 
granting parole to otherwise eligible offenders. The cap 
was raised from 20,182 to 20,482. (Chapter 1036, 
Sections 5 to 7; the prison cap in the statute is stated as 
"ninety-eight percent (98%) of 20,900," which equals 
20,482.) 

Prison Facilities 

In a 1990 referendum, the voters approved $200 
million in prison bond funds, and in 1991 the General 
Assembly allocated all but $87.5 million. The 1992 
Session of the General Assembly directed the Depart- 
ment of Correction to develop a master plan for allo- 
cating the remaining funds. The Governor is to propose 
an allocation schedule in the budget to be submitted to 
the 1993 Session. The General Assembly declared its 
intention to also consider the recommendations of the 
Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission when it 
enacts legislation in the 1993 Session to allocate the 
$87.5 million. (Chapter 1036, effective July 24, 1992; see 
also Chapter 1044, Section 41, making some changes in 
the 1991 legislation that allocated bond proceeds.) 

The General Assembly also authorized the Secretary 
of Correction to solicit bids from either for-profit or 
non-profit private firms to provide and operate treatment 
centers for 500 beds for prisoners who need treatment for 
alcohol or drug abuse. The solicitation of bids does not 
obligate the state to enter into any contract. The Secre- 
tary of Correction is to report the results of the bidding 
process by December 31, 1992, to the Governor and 
units of the General Assembly. (Chapter 900, Section 
111, effective July 1, 1992, amending Section 67 of 
Chapter 689 of the 1991 Session Laws, which prohibits 
use of for-profit, privately owned or operated prison 
facilities unless approved by the General Assembly.) 

New and Revised Criminal Offenses and Infractions 

As in previous years, in 1992 the General Assembly 
enacted legislation in areas of criminal law and correc- 
tions that, although not necessarily pertaining to court 
offices directly, impacts on criminal caseloads or 
procedures and thus affects court operations. Among the 
new offenses was "stalking" (in general, the repeated 
following of a person with intent to cause emotional 
distress by creating fear of death or injury), a Class I 
felony for second or subsequent convictions within five 
years, and otherwise a misdemeanor (Chapter 804, 
adding G.S. 14-277.3, effective October 1, 1992.) A 
statute that defines felony and misdemeanor offenses for 
keeping or maintaining a place where illegal drugs are 



THE 1991-92 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



used, kept, or sold was amended, by addition of Class I 
felony punishment for violations involving fortifying the 
place with the intent to impede entry by law enforcement 
(Chapter 1041, amending G.S. 90-108, effective October 
1, 1992). Legislation affecting prisoners authorizes coun- 
ties to use jail prisoners for work on projects to benefit 
state or local government, for which prisoners may earn 
reductions in sentence; the punishment for escaping 
while performing such work was increased from a maxi- 
mum of 30 days imprisonment or $50 fine to the general 
misdemeanor punishment of up to two years and a fine 
(Chapter 841, adding G.S. 162-58 through G.S. 162-61 
and amending G.S. 14-255, effective July 6, 1992). Other 
new or amended offenses included new Class I felonies 
for providing fraudulent information on voter registra- 
tion applications made either by mail or on driver's 
license forms (Chapter 1044, Section 18, adding G.S. 
163-72.4 effective July 1, 1993, and Section 19, amending 
G.S. 163-81 effective the earlier of when Department of 
Motor Vehicle enforcement needs are in place or July 1, 
1994); new Class H felony and misdemeanor offenses 
under a new Article regulating funeral and burial trusts 
(Chapter 901, adding offenses at G.S. 90-210.70, effective 
July 9, 1992); expansion of the compulsory school 
attendance law, which includes misdemeanor offenses 
committable by parents or other legal guardians, to 
include students under age seven enrolled in public 
school grades Kindergarten through 2 (Chapter 769, 
amending G.S. 115C-378, effective October 1, 1992); a 
misdemeanor offense for violating provisions of the new 
"Company Police Act" (Chapter 1043, adding Chapter 
74E, effective July 25, 1992); an increase from $100 to 
$200 in the maximum fine for the misdemeanor of 
speeding more than 15 miles per hour over the limit 
(Chapter 1034, amending G.S. 20-141(jl), effective 
October 1, 1992); and a new infraction offense with a 
penalty of $100 for speeding in a posted highway work 
zone (Chapter 818, adding subsection G.S. 20-14 1 (j2), 
effective October 1, 1992). 

Salaries, Benefits, and Related Matters 

For fiscal year 1992-93, the General Assembly appro- 
priated funds for a $522 salary increase for state 
employees, including Judicial Branch officials and 
employees. However, for assistant and deputy clerks 
who are not at the top of their pay scales, the General 
Assembly authorized a step increase on the salary plan 
that has historically applied to these personnel. (The 
amounts depend on the service longevity of the individual 
assistant or deputy clerk. The authorized step increase 
was at the rate that would have obtained for fiscal 1 99 1 - 
92. Due to state budget constraints last year, salary 
increases for state employees were not appropriated for 
fiscal 1991-92.) 

The General Assembly also enacted amendments 
relating to the time and manner of determining the 
salaries of the 100 Clerks of Superior Court, which are 
based on the population of their respective counties 



(Chapter 900, Section 40, amending G.S. 7A-101, effec- 
tive July I, 1992), and enhanced salary incentive provi- 
sions for licensed attorneys and law school graduates 
who become assistant clerks, by establishing certain 
minimum salary levels, and higher ranges that may be set 
by the Clerk of Superior Court with the approval of the 
Administrative Office of the Courts (Chapter 900, 
Section 1 19, amending G.S. 7A-102(d), effective July 1, 
1992). 

An additional service credit was established for magis- 
trates. A magistrate's salary is based on years of service 
as a magistrate, but years of service can be credited for 
certain educational and other experience. Amendments 
to G.S. 7A- 171. 1(a)(4) allow five years of service credit 
for a magistrate with twenty years of experience as a 
North Carolina law enforcement officer. (Chapter 900, 
Section 41, effective July 1, 1992. The five-year credit is 
available under this statute for other experience as well, 
including experience as a law enforcement officer for ten 
years within the twelve years immediately preceding 
appointment as magistrate.) 

The General Assembly also increased retirement 
benefits for state employees (Chapter 900, Sections 52 
and 53, amending G.S. 135-5 and other provisions by 
increasing the "multipliers" used to calculate retirement 
benefits, effective July 1, 1992). 

Finally, state agencies and departments, including the 
Judicial Branch, are required to develop Equal Employ- 
ment Opportunity plans in furtherance of the state 
policy to provide equal employment opportunities for all 
state employees and job applicants without regard to 
race, sex, religion, color, national origin, age, or 
disability. In addition to certain demographic data, 
plans are to include "goals and programs that provide 
positive measures to assure equitable and fair represen- 
tation of North Carolina's citizens." The Judicial Branch 
plan is to be submitted to the General Assembly by June 

1 of each year. (Chapter 919, effective October 1, 1992.) 

New Positions 

The 1992 Session of the General Assembly appro- 
priated or authorized the use of funds for the following 
new positions during fiscal 1992-93: 21 assistant district 
attorneys, one each for Prosecutorial Districts 3B, 4, 6B, 
9, 15A, 16A, 17A, 18, 19A, 22, 27A, 28, and 29 effective 
August 1, 1992, and one each for Prosecutorial Districts 
3 A, 5, 6A, 7, 10, 1 1, 12, and 21 effective October 1, 1992; 
10 secretaries for district attorney offices; 5 victim- 
witness assistants; 1 district attorney investigator; 50 
deputy clerks of superior court; 8 official court reporters; 

2 magistrates; 1 district court secretary; 9 juvenile court 
counselors; 5 juvenile services secretaries; 4 public 
defender investigators; 2 public defender secretaries; and 
15 Guardian ad Litem Services program coordinators. 
The General Assembly also authorized use of funds from 
the Indigent Persons' Attorney Fee Fund for five assis- 
tant public defender positions during 1992-93. 



PART II 



COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION 
AND OPERATIONS 

• Historical Development of Court System 

• Present Court System 

• Organization and Operations in 1991-92 



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 1 700 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 1 767 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 
Newsome, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflicting 
judge 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 1 805 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 1806, 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 12) was taken from the legislature and given to 
the voters, although vacancies were to be filled by the 
governor until the next election. The Court of Pleas and 
Quarter Sessions -- The County Court of which three 
justices of the peace constituted a quorum - - was 
eliminated. Its 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. 



Historical Development Of The North Carolina Court System, Continued 



Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 Con- 
stitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme Court 
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 that 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 com- 
ponents 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 1965, the Constitution was amended to provide for the 
creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It was 
amended again in 1972 to allow for the Supreme Court to 
censure or remove judges; 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 



10 



Historical Development Of The North Carolina Court System, Continued 

members of each house, but not the three-fifths required Hinsdale, C. E., County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition. 

to Submit constitutional amendments to a vote of the Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Ncwsome, North Carolina. ■ The 

people. Merit selection continues to be a significant issue „ His '" ry , "■ fa s ™< ner " s,ate - 1963 E & li0n - , 

u r iu r-c i a Li Sanders, John L., Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A 

before the General Assembly. Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of 

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

Battle, Kemp P., An Address on the History of the Supreme Court and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular, 1973. 

(Delivered in 1888). 1 North Carolina Reports 835-876. 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 

Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal 
(As of June 30, 1992) 



Recommendations i 

from Judicial 
Standards Commission 
i 1 



SUPREME 
COURT 

7 Justices 



I " 1 

i! Final Order of 

J Utilities Commission in " 

i General Rate Cases i 
i 1 



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



} 



SUPERIOR 
COURTS 

83 Judges 




\ 



COURT OF 
APPEALS 

12 Judges 



(2) 



^ 



i 1 

I Decisions of i 

j Most Administrative ! 
i Agencies i 

i i 



Original Jurisdiction 
Probate and estates, 
special proceedings 
(condemnations, 
adoptions, partitions, 
foreclosures, etc.); in 
certain cases, may 
accept guilty pleas 
or admissions of 
responsibility and 
enter judgment 



criminal cases 
(for trial de novo) 



I 



DISTRICT 
COURTS 

/ 79 Judges 



Clerks of Superior 
Court 

(100) 



Magistrates 

(653) 



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 
$2,000 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. 

d) As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in first degree murder cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to death or 
life imprisonment, and in Utilities Commission general 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 incases 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-240). 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 estab- 
lishes the General Court of Justice which "shall consti- 
tute a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction, 
operation, 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 38 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" ar& 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 $2,000 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 admissions of responsibility and enter 



judgment in certain 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 jurisdiction 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 health 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, 1992, 
arbitration programs had been established in 26 
counties. 

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 



13 



The Present Court System, Continued 



court. As of June 30, 1992, these mediation programs 
were operating in four judicial districts. 

Administration 

The North Carolina Supreme Court exercises "general 
supervision and control over the proceedings of the 
other courts" of the General Court of Justice. (Section 
12(1) of Article IV of the N.C. Constitution.) 

In addition to this general supervisory power, the 
North Carolina General Statutes provide certain Judicial 
Department officials with specific powers and responsi- 
bilities 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 following chart 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 38 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, 
administration of the community penalties program, 
trial court administrator services, planning, and general 
administrative services. 

The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk 
for both the superior courts 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 



(44) Senior Resident 

Judges; (100) Clerks 

of Superior Court 

SUPERIOR 
COURTS 




CHIEF JUSTICE 

and 

SUPREME COURT 



I 



Administrative 
Office of 
the Courts 



(37) District 
Attorneys 




(38) 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. 

: The Director and the Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the 
pleasure of the Chief Justice. 

The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other trial 
courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge from the judges elected in each of the 38 district court 
districts. 

4 The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the 
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the 
Judicial Department. 

5 The district attorney sets the criminal case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and 
the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their respective 
courts. 

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



15 



I 



THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

(As of June 30, 1992) 



Chief Justice 
JAMES G. EXUM, JR. 



LOUS B. MEYER 
Bl'RLEY B. MITCHELL, JR. 
HENRY E. FRYE 



Associate Justices 



JOHN WEBB 
WILLIS P. WHICHARD 
I. BEVERLY LAKE, JR. 



Retired Chief Justices 

WILLIAM H. BOBBITT 

SUSIE SHARP 



I. BEVERLY LAKE, SR. 
J. FRANK HUSKINS 



Retired Justices 



DAVID M. BRITT 
HARRY C. MARTIN 



Clerk 
Christie Speir Price 



Librarian 
Louise H. Stafford 




Chief Justice Exum 



ir, 



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 38 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 chair, one superior court 
judge, and one district court judge. The Chief Justice 
also appoints 6 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, 1991-92 

Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 
1991-92 fiscal year amounted to $2,965,205. Expendi- 
tures for the Supreme Court during 1991-92 constituted 
1.3% of all General Fund expenditures for the operation 
of the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. 



Case Data, 1991-92 

A total of 365 appealed cases were before the Supreme 
Court during the fiscal year, 184 that were pending on 
July 1, 1991, plus 181 cases filed through June 30, 1992. 
A total of 181 of these cases were disposed of, leaving 
184 cases pending on June 30, 1992. 

A total of 473 petitions (requests to appeal) were 
before the Court during the 1991-92 year, with 396 
disposed during the year and 77 pending as of June 30, 
1992. The Court granted 70 petitions for review during 
1991-92 compared to 53 for 1990-91. 

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



17 



SUPREME COURT CASELOAD INVENTORY 
July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 



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 

Total Other Proceedings 



'ending 






Pending 


7/1/91 


Filed 


Disposed 


6/30/92 


7 





7 





2 





2 





44 


230 


224 


50 


29 


148 


152 


25 


3 


10 


11 


2 



85 



388 



396 



77 



2 





2 





1 





1 





1 





1 


o 


1 





1 





34 


30 


36 


28 


41 


58 


41 


58 


35 


26 


33 


28 


33 


41 


37 


37 


15 


11 


12 


14 


9 


11 


8 


12 


6 


4 


7 


3 


6 





2 


4 


184 


181 


181 


184 




16 


16 
















511 


511 






527 


527 





Petitions for review are cases in which the Court is asked 
to accept discretionary review of decisions of the Court 
of Appeals as well as certain other tribunals. The 



Appeals category comprises cases within the Court's 
appellate jurisdiction, as listed on the previous page. 



IX 



APPEALS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT 
July 1, 1991 -June 30, 1992 



Criminal-Death 
14.4% (26) 



Other Civil 
48.6% (88) 




Criminal-Life 

22.7% (41) 



Admin. Agency 
2.2% (4) 



Other Criminal 
12.2% (22) 



PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT 
July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 



Other Civil 
59.3% (230) 




Criminal 
38.1% (148) 



Admin. Agencv 
2.6% (10) 



SUPREME COURT CASELOAD TYPES 

by Superior Court Division and District 

July 1, 1991 — June 30, 1992 



Judicial 


Superior Court 


Total 


Death 


Life 


Other 


Civil 


Other 


Cases 


Division 


District 


Cases* 


Cases 


Cases 


Criminal 


Cases 


Cases 


Disposed** 


I 


1 


S 


2 


1 


2 


3 





4 




2 


5 


1 





2 


2 





2 




3A 


12 


4 


1 


1 


6 





5 




3B 


6 





1 


1 


4 





2 




4A 


9 


5 


3 


1 








2 




4B 


7 


2 


3 


2 








2 




5 


17 


3 


4 


1 


9 





6 




6A 


9 


4 


3 


2 








5 




6B 


5 


3 


1 





1 





2 




7A 


4 


1 








3 





2 




7B-C 


8 


3 


I 





4 





1 




8A 


2 





1 





1 










8B 


2 


1 








1 








SUBTOTAL 




94 


29 


19 


12 


34 





33 


II 


9 


9 


3 


2 





4 





4 




10 


43 


4 


2 


2 


19 


16 


22 




11 


12 


2 


5 





5 





5 




12 


X 


I 


4 


1 


2 





5 




13 


s 


2 


4 


1 


1 





4 




14 


15 


2 


1 


4 


7 


1 


6 




15A 


10 


3 


5 


1 


1 





5 




15B 


9 





3 





5 


1 


4 




16A 


5 


2 


1 





2 





3 




16B 


18 


6 


6 


3 


3 





11 


SUBTOTAL 




137 


25 


33 


12 


49 


18 


69 


III 


17A 


6 


4 


1 





1 





2 




17B 


5 


2 





2 


1 





2 




18 


23 


2 


6 


4 


11 





12 




19A 


4 


1 








3 





1 




19B 


2 











2 





1 




19C 


5 


1 


1 


1 


2 





1 




20A 


6 


2 


1 





3 





3 




20B 

























21 


30 


3 


5 


3 


18 


1 


12 




22 


10 


4 








6 





1 




23 


8 


2 


1 





5 





3 


SUBTOTAL 




99 


21 


15 


10 


52 


1 


38 


IV 


24 


7 


1 





1 


5 





5 




25A 


5 


1 





1 


3 





4 




25B 


6 


I 


2 


2 


1 





2 




26 


31 


7 


6 


5 


13 





14 




27A 


3 


2 








1 





1 




27B 


5 


1 


2 


1 


1 










28 


13 


1 


3 


1 


8 





4 




29 


9 


1 


7 


1 








5 




30A 


8 


2 


1 


1 


4 





5 




30 B 


5 








2 


3 





1 


SUBTOTAL 




92 


17 


21 


15 


39 





41 


TOTALS 




422 


92 


88 


49 


174 


19 


181 



'"Total Cases" includes any petition or appeal involving some activity on the part of the Court during the fiscal year. It includes life and death 
sentence cases awaiting Record on Appeal and not yet formally docketed. 

•"Cases Disposed" includes appeals decided by opinion as well as those dismissed or withdrawn after being docketed as full appeals. 



20 



SUBMISSION OF CASES REACHING DECISION STAGE IN THE SUPREME COURT 

July 1,1991 —June 30, 1992 



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 (0) 

Total submissions without argument 

Total Cases Reaching Decision Stage 



1 


75 

27 
40 
IX 

13 
174 



3 
4 

178 



DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS BY THE SUPREME COURT 
July 1, 1991 — June 30, 1992 



Petitions for Review 

Civil Domestic 

Juvenile 

Other Civil 

Criminal 

Administrative Agency Decision 

Total Petitions for Review 







Dismissc 


d/ 


Total 


Granted* 


Denied 


Withdra 


wn 


Disposed 


1 


5 


1 




7 





2 







2 


58 


156 


10 




224 


11 


133 


8 




152 





11 







II 


70 


307 


19 




396 



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



21 



DISPOSITION OF APPEALS IN THE SUPREME COURT 
July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 



Disposition by Signed Opinion 











Reversed 




Total 


Case Types 


Affirmed 


Modified 


Reversed 


Remanded 


Remanded 


Disposed 


Civil domestic 


2 





1 








3 


Juvenile 


1 








1 





2 


Other civil 


15 


6 


x 


29 





58 


Criminal (death sentence) 


3 











29 


32 


Criminal (life sentence) 


30 








2 


5 


37 


Other criminal 


5 





1 


10 





16 


Administrative agency decision 


1 











1 


2 



Totals 



57 



10 



42 



35 



150 



Disposition by Per Curiam Opinion 











Reversed 




Total 


Case Types 


Affirmed 


Modified 


Reversed 


Remanded 


Remanded 


Disposed 


Civil domestic 
Juvenile 
Other civil 





II 










1 





2 










14 


Criminal (death sentence) 
Criminal (life sentence) 
Other criminal 


1 


3 















1 







1 


4 


Administrative agency decision 


6 





1 








7 



Totals 



21 



26 



Disposition by Dismissal or Withdrawal 



Case Types 

Civil domestic 

Juvenile 

Other civil 

Criminal (death sentence) 

Criminal (life sentence) 

Other criminal 

Administrative agency decision 

Totals 



Dismissed or 
Withdrawn 



5 







22 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF APPEALS 
IN THE SUPREME COURT 

July 1, 1991 —June 30, 1992 



Dismissed/ Withdrawn 

2.8% (5) 



Signed Opinions 
82.9% (150) 




Per Curiam Opinions 
4.4% (26) 



TYPE OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW 
IN THE SUPREME COURT 

July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 



Dismissed/ Withdrawn 
4.8% (19) 



Denied 
77.5% (307) 




Granted 
17.7% (70) 



23 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 
Appeals Docketed and Disposed During the Years 1986-87 — 1991-92 



250 



200 



150 



Number 

of 

Cases 



100 



50 




1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 



Appeals Docketed | \ Appeals Disposed 



24 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 
Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years 1986-87— 1991-92 



Number 

of 

Cases 



800 



700 



600 



500 



400 



300 



200 



100 




1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 



Petitions Docketed ] Petitions Allowed 



25 



SUPREME COURT PROCESSING TIME FOR DISPOSED APPEALS 

(Total time in days from docketing to disposition) 
July 1, 1991 — June 30, 1992 



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 



2 


— 


563 


1 


— 


471 


1 


— 


332 


1 


— 


952 


36 


297 


360 


41 


303 


350 


33 


449 


533 


37 


325 


413 


12 


297 


372 


8 


439 


479 


7 


212 


299 


2 


— 


584 


181 


315 


412 



26 



THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA 
(As of June 30, 1992) 



Chief Judge 
R. A. HEDRICK 



GERALD ARNOLD 
HUGH A. WELLS 
CLIFTON E. JOHNSON 
SIDNEYS. EAGLES, JR. 
SARAH PARKER 
JACK COZORT 



Judges 



ROBERT F. ORR 
K. EDWARD GREENE 

JOHN B. LEWIS, JR. 
JAMES A. WYNN, JR. 

RALPH A. WALKER 



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



Retired Judges 



CECIL J. HILL 

E. MAURICE BRASWELL 

EUGENE H. PHILLIPS 



Clerk 
FRANCIS E. DAIL 



Assistant Clerk 
JOHN H. CONNELL 



2^ 



THE COURT OF APPEALS 



rhe 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. 

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 
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, 1991-92 

Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during 
the 1991-92 fiscal year totaled $3,759,252. Expenditures 
for the Court of Appeals during 1991-92 amounted to 
1.7% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of 
the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. 

Case Data, 1991-92 

A total of 1,304 appealed cases were filed before the 
Court of Appeals during the period July 1, 1991 - June 
30, 1992. A total of 1,099 cases were disposed of during 
the same period. During 1991-92, a total of 356 petitions 
and 1,357 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 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 



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 



241 

576 

54 

433 



Totals 



1,304 



1,099 



Petitions 



Allowed 

Denied 

Remanded 



73 

279 





Totals 



356 



352 



Motions 



Allowed 

Denied 

Remanded 



979 

378 





Totals 



1,357 



1,357 



Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions, and Motions 



3,017 



2,808 



MANNER OF CASE DISPOSITIONS -- COURT OF APPEALS 



July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



Cases Disposed by Written Opinion 







Cases Affirmed 






Cases 


Cases 


In Part, Reversed 


Other Cases 


Total Cases 


Affirmed 


Reversed 


In Part 


Disposed 


Disposed 



706 



177 



77 



139 



.099 



29 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

1986-87 -- 1991-92 



2.500 



2.000 



1,500 



Number 

of 

Cases 



1,000 



500 




1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 

I Filings LJ Dispositions 



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



50 



O 

u 

a 

C 



(N 

On 
On 



O 
en 

3 

1—5 

o 

c 
o 



{J a 







o Z 



©H 



"C 

5 

U ON 

u en 

O 

u 

u 



u 

O 

Z 




u 



.s 







o 






£ 






U 




■t^ 


J= 




u 

ID 


1 

z 


CM 


p 


IH 


er- 


1) 





as 


> 
O 


>> 


© 


O 
o 


Vi 

U 

0) 


43 


> 




OJ 


C 


g 


D 


a 


*_- 


i) 


5 




5 


£ 



"C 

5 

"3 



u 


<N 


o 


o> 


+-> 


ON 


3 


r-H 


0) 


o 


Cfi 


o 


O 


<D 


u 


C 


Pn 


3 



CS <tt 



o 

ft 
U 



© 



c3 






•c U 

£ o\ 


V. 


en ~h 






o 


"-a 




— i c 




CS w 


-3 


'C 


3 


5 < 


3 ON 


o — < 


U 


CJ 


U 


"1 ,» 


o 


2 a 
o .a 


•9 


80 


— 




R 


C 3 




•- o 


09 


u U 


u 


c 


g 


o *- 


og 


o 


TD 


oo 


~ 


S, Q 


•c 


o 


c 
5 


u 


00 C 


v: 


3 CX, 


C 

a, • 


£ o 




E ° 


01 


a < 



o 

0) O 



O CT\ 






— o 

©a 






33 



JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 
(As of June 30, 1992) 



FIRST DIVISION 

District 

1 *Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City 

Steven D. Michael, Kitty Hawk 

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 *Henrv L. Stevens III, Kenansville 

4B *James R. Strickland, Jacksonville 

5 *Xapoleon 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 

I5B *F. Gordon Battle, Hillsborough 

16A *B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg 

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



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



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 

19B *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 

21A 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 



24 
25A 

25B 

26A 

26B 

26C 

27A 

27B 

28 

29 

30A 
30B 



FOURTH DIVISION 

*Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone 

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

*Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 

Shirley L. Fulton, Charlotte 
Marcus L. Johnson, Charlotte 
Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte 
Julia V. Jones, Charlotte 
*Robert M. Burroughs, Sr., Charlotte 
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte 

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

*John Mull Gardner, Shelby 

* Robert D. Lewis, Asheville 
C. Walter Allen, Asheville 

*Zoro J. Guice, Rutherfordton 
Loto Greenlee Caviness, Marion 

*James U. Downs, Franklin 

*Janet M. Hyatt, Waynesville 



34 



SPECIAL JUDGE OF SUPERIOR COURT 

Marvin K. Gray, Charlotte 



EMERGENCY AND RETIRED/RECALLED JUDGES 
OF SUPERIOR COURT 

(As of June 30, 1992) 



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 
J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City 
L. Bradford Tillery, Wilmington 
Edward K. Washington, High Point 



The Conference of Superior Court Judges 

(Executive Committee as of June 30, 1992) 

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

Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory, President- Elect 

W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro, Vice-President 

E. Lynn Johnson, Fayetteville, Secretary-Treasurer 

Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown, Immediate Past- President 

Additional Executive Committee Members: 

David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville 
Anthony M. Brannon, Durham 
Joseph R. John, Sr., Greensboro 

Ex Officio Members: 

Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg 
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte 




Judge Julius A. Rousseau, Jr. 



35 



THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



North Carolina's superior courts are the general juris- 
diction trial courts for the state. In 1991-92, there were 
S2 "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 
S 10,000. 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 $20,272,639 was expended on the operations 
of the superior courts during the 1991-92 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 1991-92 fiscal year. 

Caseload 

Including both civil and criminal cases, 147,219 cases 
were filed in the superior courts during 1991-92, an 
increase of 1 1,800 cases (8.7%) from the total of 135,419 
cases that were filed in 1990-91. There were increases in 
filings in civil cases (1.1%) and felony cases (16.0%), 
while misdemeanor filings decreased slightly (0.6%). 

Superior court case dispositions increased from 
129,302 in 1990-91 to 138,711 in 1991-92. Dispositions in 
felony cases increased (by 14.1%), while dispositions in 
civil and misdemeanor cases decreased slightly (by 1.4% 
and 0.5% respectively). 

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, 1992) 



District 

1 Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City 
John R. Parker, Manteo 

Janice M. Cole, Hertford 

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

3A E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville 
James E. Martin, Grifton 
David A. Leech, Greenville 

3B James E. Ragan III, Oriental 

Willie L. Lumpkin III, Morehead City 
George L. Wainwright, Morehead City 
Jerry F. Waddell, New Bern 

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

Paul A. Hardison, Jacksonville 

5 Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington 
Elton Glenn Tucker, Wilmington 

John W. Smith, Wilmington 
W. Allen Cobb, Jr., Wilmington 
Julius H. Corpening, Wilmington 
Shelley S. Holt, Wilmington 

6A Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck 

6B Alfred W. Kwasikpui, Jackson 
Thomas R. Newbern, Aulander 

7 George Britt, Tarboro 

, Allen W. Harrell, Wilson 
Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson 
Sarah F. Patterson, Rocky Mount 
Joseph J. Harper, Jr., Tarboro 
M. Alexander Biggs, Jr., Rocky Mount 

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

9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford 
Charles W. Wilkinson, Jr., Oxford 
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton 

H. Weldon Lloyd, Jr., Henderson 
Pattie S. Harrison, Roxboro 



District 

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

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

12 Sol G. Cherry, Fayetteville 

A. Elizabeth Keever, Fayetteville 
Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Fayetteville 
John S. Hair, Jr., Fayetteville 
James F. Ammons, Jr., 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 
David Q. LaBarre, Durham 
Richard Chaney, Durham 
Carolyn D. Johnson, Durham 
William Y. Manson, Durham 

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

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

16A Warren L. Pate, Raeford 

William C. Mcllwain III, Wagram 

16B Charles G. McLean, Lumberton 

Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton 
Gary L. Locklear, Pembroke 
Robert F. Floyd, Jr., Fairmont 
J. Stanley Carmical, Lumberton 



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



37 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1992) 



District 

PA Robert R. Blackwell, Yanceyville 
Philip \Y. Allen, Yanceyville 
Janeice B. Williams, Reidsville 

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

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

19A Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord 

Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis 

19B William M. Neely, Asheboro 
Vance B. Long, Asheboro 
Michael A. Sabiston, Troy 

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

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

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

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



District 

24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland 

R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk 
Claude Smith, Boone 

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

26 James E. Lanning, Charlotte 
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte 
William G. Jones, Charlotte 
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte 
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte 
Resa L. Harris, Charlotte 
Richard A. Elkins, Charlotte 
Marilyn R. Bissell, Charlotte 
Richard D. Boner, Charlotte 

H. Brent McKnight, Charlotte 

H. William Constangy, Jr., Charlotte 

Jane V. Harper, Charlotte 

Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte 

27A Larry B. Langson, Gastonia 
Timothy L. Patti, Gastonia 
Harley B. Gaston, Jr., Belmont 
Catherine C. Stevens, Gastonia 
Daniel J. Walton, 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 
Peter L. Roda, Asheville 
Gary S. Cash, Fletcher 
Shirley H. Brown, Asheville 
Rebecca B. Knight, Asheville 

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

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



J 8 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES 



The Association of District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1992) 

Patricia S. Love, Chapel Hill, President 
L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory, Immediate Past- President 
Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy, Vice-President 
John W. Smith, Wilmington, Secretary-Treasurer 

Additional Executive Committee Members: 

Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City 
Kenneth C. Titus, Durham 
Lawrence C. McSwain, Greensboro 
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte 
A. Elizabeth Keever, Fayetteville 
Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Fayetteville 
Danny E. Davis, Waynesville 
Russell G. Sherrill III, Raleigh 
David LaBarre, Durham 




Judge Patricia S. Love 



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 
l _c > district court judges serving in 38 district court 
districts during 1991-92. These judges are elected to four- 
year terms by the voters of their respective districts. 

A total of 653 magistrate positions were authorized as 
of June 30, 1992. Of this number, 48 positions were 
specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed by the 
senior resident superior court judge from nominations 
submitted by the clerk of superior court of their county, 
and they are supervised by the chief district court judge 
of their district. 

Jurisdiction 

The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtual- 
ly all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in 
felonv 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 plaintiff's request, a 
civil case in which the amount in controversy is $2,000 or 
less, mav be designated a "small claims" case and 
assigned by the chief district court judge to a magistrate 
for hearing. Magistrates are empowered to hear and 
enter judgments as directed by the chief district court 
judge in criminal worthless check cases when the amount 
of the check does not exceed $2,000, provided that the 
sentence imposed does not exceed 30 days. In addition, 
they may accept written appearances, waivers of trial, 
and pleas of guilty, and enter judgments as the chief 
district court judge directs, in certain littering cases, and 
in worthless check cases when the amount of the check is 
S2.000 or less, the offender has made restitution, and the 
warrant does not charge a fourth or subsequent worthless 
check violation. Magistrates may also accept waivers of 
appearance, pleas of guilty or admissions of responsibil- 
ity, and enter judgments in misdemeanor or infraction 
cases involving certain alcohol, traffic, hunting, fishing, 
and boating offenses in accordance with a uniform 
schedule adopted by the Conference of Chief District 
Court Judges. In other misdemeanor and infraction 
cases, where the punishment cannot exceed imprison- 
ment for 30 days or a $50 fine or penalty, magistrates 
may accept guilty pleas or admissions of responsibility 
and enter judgment. Magistrates may also conduct initial 
appearances, grant bail before trial in noncapital cases, 
and 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 1991-92 amounted to $38,576,178. 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 653 magistrates. The 1991-92 
total for the district courts is 17.5% of the General Fund 
expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial 
Department, compared to an 18.2% share of total Judi- 
cial Department expenditures in the 1990-91 fiscal year. 



Caseload 

During 1991-92 the statewide total number of district 
court filings (civil and criminal) increased by 41,340 
cases (1.8%) from the total number reported for 1990-91. 
Not including juvenile proceedings and mental health 
hospital commitment hearings, a total of 2,294,688 cases 
were filed in 1991-92, compared to 2,253,348 total filings 
in 1990-9 1 . Most of this increase is attributable to a 6.4% 
increase in infraction filings, from 651,728 in 1990-91 to 
693,396 in 1991-92. Criminal non-motor vehicle case 
filings decreased by 0.1% (632 cases) during 1991-92. 
Considering criminal motor vehicle and infraction cases 
together, there was an increase of 41,036 cases (3.6%) 
from the number of such cases filed in 1990-91. Domestic 
relations case filings increased by 7,893 cases (9.2%), 
from 85,331 in 1990-91 to 93,224 in 1991-92. Filings of 
civil magistrate cases decreased by 18,920 cases (6.8%) 
from the number filed in 1990-91, and filings of general 
civil cases decreased by 4,125 cases (6.6%). 



40 



The District Courts, Continued 



The Conference of Chief District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1992) 

George W. Hamrick, Shelby, President 

J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro, Vice-President 

William A. Christian, Sanford, Secretary-Treasurer 



^■-V 



> 




Judge George W. Hamrick 



41 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

(As of June 30, 1992) 



Prosecutorial 
District 

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

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, 1992) 

C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., President 
Horace M. Kimel, Jr., President- Elect 
Thomas D. Haigwood, Vice-President 
W. David McFadyen, Jr., Past- President 
Donald M. Jacobs 
H. W. Zimmerman, Jr. 
James T. Rusher 



The District Attorneys Association 

(Officers as of June 30, 1992) 

C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., Raleigh, President 
Horace M. Kimel, Jr., Greensboro, President- Elect 
Thomas D. Haigwood, Greenville, Vice-President 
Deborah Shandies, Raleigh, Secretary-Treasurer 




District Attorney 
C. Colon Willoughby, Jr. 



43 



THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 



The State is divided into 37 prosecutorial districts 
which, with one exception, correspond to the 38 district 
court districts. The counties in District Court Districts 
19A and 19C comprise single Prosecutorial 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, 1992, a total of 267 
assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 37 
prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District 
26 (Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff (22 
assistants) and the district attorney of three districts 
(Districts 6A, 6B, and 16A) 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 $25,016,541 was expended in 1991-92 for 
the 37 district attorney offices. In addition, a total of 
S78,890 was expended for the District Attorney's Con- 
ference and its staff. 

1991-92 Caseload 

A total of 126,673 criminal cases were filed in the 
superior courts during 1991-92, consisting of 85,748 
felony cases and 40,925 misdemeanor cases; all but 8,963 
of the misdemeanors were appeals from the district 
courts. The total number of criminal filings in the 
superior courts in 1990-91 was 115,099. The increase of 
1 1,574 cases in 1991-92 represents a 10.1% increase over 
the 1990-91 total. All of this increase was attributable to 
a substantial increase in felony case filings. Felony filings 
in the superior courts increased by 16.0%, from 73,908 in 
1 990-9 1 to 85,748 in 1 99 1 -92. There was a small decrease 
of 0.6% (266 cases) in filings of misdemeanors, from 
41,191 in 1990-91 to 40,925 in 1991-92. 



A total of 119,256 criminal cases were disposed of in 
the superior courts during 1991-92. There were 79,680 
felony dispositions, and 39,576 misdemeanor disposi- 
tions. In 1991-92, total criminal case dispositions in- 
creased by 9,684 cases (8.8%) over the 109,572 cases 
disposed of in 1990-91. Felony dispositions increased by 
14.1% (9,867 cases) during 1991-92 compared to 1990- 
91, and misdemeanor dispositions decreased by 0.5% 
(183 cases). 

The median ages of criminal cases at disposition in the 
superior courts during 1991-92 were 97 days for felony 
cases and 80 days for misdemeanor cases. In 1990-91, the 
median age of felony cases at disposition was 96 days, 
and the median age at disposition for misdemeanor cases 
was 83 days. 

The number of criminal cases disposed of by jury trial 
in the superior courts increased from 2,959 in 1990-91 to 
3,109 in 1991-92, an increase of 5.1%. As in past years, 
the proportion of total criminal cases disposed by jury 
was relatively small, 2.7% in 1990-91 compared to 2.6% 
in 1991-92. 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 1991-92 a majority (66,197 or 55.5%) 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 
1990-91 (54.4%). 

"Dismissal by district attorney" accounted for a signi- 
ficant percentage of all criminal case dispositions in 
superior court during 1991-92, a total of 35,709 cases, or 
29.9% of all dispositions. This proportion is comparable 
to that reported for prior years (29.8% in 1990-91). 
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 1991-92 was 7,417 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 47,544 at the beginning of the fiscal 
year, to 54,961 pending cases at the end of the year, an 
increase of 15.6%. 

The median age of felony cases pending in the superior 
courts increased from 1 10 days on June 30, 1991, to 119 
days on June 30, 1992. The median age of pending 
misdemeanor cases increased from 100 days on June 30, 
1991, to 1 16 days on June 30, 1992. 

In the district courts, a total of 1,816,327 criminal 
cases and infractions were filed during 1991-92. This 
total consisted of 493,342 criminal motor vehicle cases, 
693,396 infraction cases, and 629,589 criminal non-motor 



44 



The District Attorneys, Continued 



vehicle cases. Compared with total filings in 1990-91 
(1,755,988), total filings in 1991-92 increased by 60,339 
cases, or 3.4%. Filings of criminal non-motor vehicle 
cases increased by 19,303 cases (3.2%), from 610,286 
cases in 1990-91 to 629,589 cases in 1991-92. Filings of 
motor vehicle plus infraction cases increased by 41,036 
cases (3.6%), from 1,145,702 in 1990-91 to 1,186,738 in 
1991-92. 

Total dispositions of motor vehicle and infraction 
cases in the district courts amounted to 1,180,565 cases 
during 1991-92 (498,951 motor vehicle dispositions and 
681,614 infraction dispositions). This total amounts to a 
2.9% increase above the number of such cases disposed 
during 1990-91 (a total of 1,147,659 cases, 486,812 crimi- 
nal motor vehicle cases and 660,847 infractions). As in 
prior years, a substantial portion of such cases was 
disposed by waiver of appearance and entry of pleas of 
guilty (or "responsibility" in infraction cases) before a 
clerk or magistrate. During 1991-92, 521,857 motor 
vehicle and infraction cases (44.2%) were disposed by 
waiver. This substantial number of cases did not require 
action by the district attorneys' offices and should not be 
regarded as having been a part of the district attorneys' 
caseload. The remaining 658,708 infraction and motor 
vehicle cases (253,799 infraction and 404,909 motor 
vehicle cases) were disposed by means other than waiver, 
and were a part of the district attorneys' workload. This 
balance was a decrease of 3,733 cases (0.6%) compared 
to the 662,441 motor vehicle and infraction dispositions 
that were not disposed by waiver in 1990-91. 



With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case dis- 
positions, a total of 624,649 such cases were disposed of 
in district courts in 1991-92, an increase of 19,363 cases 
(3.2%) compared to the 605,286 such dispositions in 
1990-91. As with superior court criminal cases, the most 
frequent method of disposition was by entry of guilty 
plea and the next most frequent was dismissal by the 
district attorney. A total of 217,885 cases, or 34.9% of 
the dispositions, were by guilty pleas. An additional 
186,378 cases, 29.8% of the total, were disposed of by 
prosecutor dismissal. The remaining cases were disposed 
of by waiver (10.2%), trial (6.1%), as a felony probable 
cause matter (1 1.8%), or by other means (7.2%). 

During 1991-92, the median age at disposition of 
criminal non-motor vehicle cases was 36 days. The 
median age at disposition for these cases in 1990-91 was 
34 days. 

During 1991-92, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle 
cases in the district courts exceeded dispositions by 4,940 
cases. The number of non-motor vehicle criminal cases 
pending at year's end was 133,61 1, compared with a total 
of 128,671 that were pending at the beginning of the 
year, an increase of 3.8% in the number of pending cases. 
The median age of pending non-motor vehicle cases on 
June 30, 1992, was 64 days, about the same as the 
median age of such cases pending on June 30, 1991, 65 
days. 

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, 1992) 



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 


Linda P. Lanier 


Pitt 


Craven 


Jean W. Boyd 


Polk 


Cumberland 


George T. Griffin 


Randolph 


Currituck 


Sheila R. Romm 


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 


Hayes 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 
Mary K. Sutherland 
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, 1992) 

C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr., Scotland County 
President 

Georgia Lee Brown, Harnett County 
First Vice- President 

Thomas H. Thompson, Henderson County 
Second Vice- President 

Richard E. Hunter, Jr., Warren County 
Secretary 

Thomas S. Payne III, Beaufort County 
Treasurer 

Judy P. Arledge, Polk County 
Immediate Past- President 




C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr. 



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 clerks 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. 

In proceedings before them, the clerks have authority 
to issue subpoenas and other process, including orders to 
show cause, and otherwise exercise control of such 
proceedings, including through certain contempt powers. 
Clerks administer oaths, take acknowledgment and proof 
of execution of instruments or writings, issue arrest 
warrants valid throughout the state and search warrants 
valid throughout the county, and may conduct initial 
appearances and fix conditions of release in noncapital 
cases. 

The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue 
subpoenas and other process necessary to execute the 
judgments entered in the superior and district courts of 
the county. For certain misdemeanor 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 established by the Confer- 
ence 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 $64,191,989 was expended in 1991-92 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 1991-92 amounted to 29.0% of the 
General Fund expenditures for the operations of the 
entire Judicial Department. 

1991-92 Caseload 

During 1991-92, estate filings totaled 47,634, a 1.9% 
increase from the 46,735 estate cases filed in 1990-91. 
Estate case dispositions totaled 46,987 in 1991-92, or 
2.3% more than the previous year's total of 45,920. 

A total of 5 1 ,634 special proceedings were filed before 
the 100 clerks of superior court in 1991-92. This was a 
3.9% increase from the 49,689 estate cases filed during 
1990-91. Special proceedings dispositions decreased by 
1.3% (575 cases), from 42,783 during 1990-91, to 42,208 
during 1991-92. 

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 1991-92 year was 
147,219 (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 2,294,688. 

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



4X 



TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATORS 
(As of June 30, 1992) 

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

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) 
Kimbrell Tucker 

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

District 14 (Durham County) 
Michael A. DiMichele 

District 21 (Forsyth County) 
Jane Clare 

District 26 (Mecklenburg County) 
Todd Nuccio 

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 



NORTH CAROLINA CONFERENCE OF 
COURT ADMINISTRATORS 

(Officers as of June 30, 1992) 

William W. Nicholls, Jr., President 
Todd Nuccio, Secretary-Treasurer 
Michael A. DiMichele, Bulletin Editor 




William W. Nicholls, Jr. 



44 



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 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, 
encompassing twenty-five counties (although 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, custody mediation, and mediated 
settlement conferences, 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 programs, and jails, and frequently serve 
as the court's liaison with other governmental and 
private organizations, 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 their respective districts. 
During 1991-92, twelve trial court administrators served 
the following superior court districts: 3A, 3B, 4A (district 
court matters only), 4B, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26, 27A, 28, 
and 29. 



50 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS 



During 1991-92, 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 District 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 S500 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 $6,905,749 was expended for operation of 
the eleven public defender offices during 1991-92. 



1991-92 Caseload 

The eleven public defender offices disposed of cases 
involving a total of 38,251 indigent persons during 1991- 
92. This was an increase of 2,442 indigents, or 6.8% over 
the 35,809 represented to disposition during 1990-91. 

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



Public Defenders 
(As of June 30, 1992) 

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) 
Jesse B. Caldwell, Gastonia 

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



*The public defender in District 1 6B is appointed by the resident superior court judge of Superior Court District 1 6B 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. 



51 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS 



The Association of Public Defenders 

(Officers as of June 30, 1992) 

Robert L. Ward, President 
Ann Toney, Vice-President 
Cynthia D. West, Secretary-Treasurer 




Robert L. Ward 



S2 



THE OFFICE OF THE APPELLATE DEFENDER 

(Staff as of June 30, 1992) 

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender 

Assistant Appellate Defenders 

Janine Crawley Mark D. Montgomery 

Benjamin Sendor Daniel R. Pollitt 

Staples S. Hughes M. Gordon Widenhouse 

Susan White Constance H. Everhart 



The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a 
State-funded program on October 1, 1981. (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. 

1991-92 Caseload 

The Office of the Appellate Defender accepted ap- 
pointment in a total of 92 appeals or petitions for writ 
of certiorari during the 1991-92 year. The Appellate 
Defender Office filed a total of 125 briefs in the North 
Carolina Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of 
North Carolina during the 1991-92 year. 




Malcolm Rav Hunter, Jr. 



53 



THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 
July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 



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 legal representation of indigents; 
arrange for the printing and distribution of the published 
opinions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals; 
and pertorm numerous other duties and responsibilities, 
including production of this Annual Report. Effective 
July 1 . 1 99 1 , the AOC is also responsible for administra- 
tion of the Community Penalties Program, which is 
summarized later in this 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, 



54 



The Administrative Office of the Courts, Continued 



and other personnel-related affairs of the Judicial Branch, 
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 services, 
management of the AOC warehouse and print shop, 
maintenance of the AOC fixed asset system, and con- 
tracting for and handling of services for equipment 
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. I he 
Research and Planning Division also provides oversight 
and support for the preparation and administration ol 
grants in the Judicial Branch. The AOCs Judges' Legal 
Research Program, within the Research and Planning 
Division, provides legal research requested by trial court 
judges on issues that arise in civil and criminal cases. 

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 ol the 
AOC. 

A total of $12,743,302 was expended for AOC opera- 
tions during 1991-92, representing 5.8% of total Judicial 
Branch expenditures. Of that total, 48.9% ($6,233,259) 
was expended for the purchase and operation of computer 
equipment, management of automated systems, and 
operating expenses of the Information Services Division. 
The remaining 51.1% ($6,5 10,043) of total AOC expendi- 
tures was for other AOC operations, including a total of 
$499,868 for operation of the AOC warehouse and print 
shop. 



Administrative Office of the Courts 

(As of June 30, 1992) 

Franklin Freeman, Jr., Director 

Dallas A. Cameron, Jr., Assistant Director 

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. 



55 



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 delinquency 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 1991- 
92 fiscal year a total of 34,929 complaints were brought 
to the attention of intake counselors. Of this number, 
24.671 (70.69c) were approved for filing, and 10,258 
(29.4%) 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 1991-92 a total of 15,046 juveniles were supervised 
in the probation and aftercare program. 

Expenditures 

The Juvenile Services Division is State-funded. The 
expenditures for fiscal year 1991-92 totaled $14,744,624. 
The 1991-92 expenditures amounted to 6.7% of all 
General Fund expenditures for the operation of the 
entire Judicial Department, compared to 7.0% in 
1990-91. 

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, 1992) 

Thomas A. Danek, Administrator 

Edward F. Taylor, Assistant Administrator 

Nancy C. Patteson, Area Administrator 

M. Harold Rogerson, Area Administrator 

W. Robert Atkinson, Area Administrator 

Rex B. Yates, Area Administrator 

Arlene J. Kincaid, Administrative Officer 



56 



JUVENILE SERVICES DIVISION 
(As of June 30, 1992) 



District Court 

District Chief Court Counselor 



District Court 

District Chief Court Counselor 



1 

2 

3 A 
3B 

4 

5 

6A 
6B 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 
15A 
15B 
16A 



Donald Alexander 
Joseph A. Paul 
Everlena C. Rogers 
E. Blake Belcher 
George Ashley 
Phyllis Roebuck 
John R. Brady 
Ann Mobley 
Pamela Honeycutt 
Lynn C. Sasser 
Sherman Wilson 
Larry C. Dix 
Henry C. Cox 
Phil T. Utley 
Jimmy E. Godwin 
Archie Snipes 
Harry L. Derr 
Donald Hargrove 
Rogena Deese 



16B 


Carey Collins 


17A 


Charles Barton 


17B 


Jack H. Moore, Jr. 


18 


J. Manley Dodson 


19A 


Verne Brady 


19Band 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 


2S 


Louis Parrish 


29 


Kenneth E. Lanning 


30 


Betty G. Alley 



NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF 

COURT COUNSELORS 

(Officers for 1991-92) 

Executive Committee Members 

E. Blake Belcher, President 
Fred Elliott, President- Elect 
Karen Bushong, Secretary 
Karen Jones, Treasurer 
Butch Parker, Parliamentarian 

Board Members 



1989-92 

Joan Blanchard 
Donald Roberts 
Carolyn Gary 



1990-93 

Randall Graham 
Karen McDonald 
Timothy Montgomery 



1991-94 

Ranae Barker 
Clarence High, Jr. 
Rodger Decker 




E. Blake Belcher 



57 



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 
trained volunteer investigates the child's situation and 
works with the attorney to represent the child's needs in 
court and to make recommendations for case disposition 
and any necessary continuing supervision until court 
intervention is no longer required. In addition, the 
attorney protects the child's legal rights throughout the 
proceedings. In 1989, the statute was amended to extend 
Guardian ad Litem services to dependent children at the 
discretion of the trial judge. During 1991-92, a total of 
2,272 volunteers were active in the North Carolina 
program and represented a total of 12,257 abused and 
neglected children. These volunteers participated in 
16.815 court hearings and gave approximately 205,600 
volunteer hours to casework and training in the State's 
guardian ad litem program. 

Expenditures 

During 1991-92, total expenditures for the guardian 
ad litem program amounted to $3,230,220. Of this 
amount. SI, 058, 060 was for program attorney fees and 
S2. 172, 160 was for program administration. The total 
included reimbursement of volunteers' expense of 
SI 04.361 (covering 168,772 casework hours for 12,257 
abused and neglected children). In 1990-91, there were 
1,817 volunteers representing 10,387 children and pro- 
viding 138,060 casework hours with reimbursement 
expenses of $93,896. 



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 33 of the 
State's 38 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 twenty-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 1991-92 for districts in which the 
caseload was too small to justify a district administrator 
position. In those districts, a contract attorney served as 
the administrator and supervisor of the volunteer 
program.) 



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, 1992) 

Ilene B. Nelson, Administrator 

Alma Brown, Regional Administrator 

Cindy Mays, Regional Administrator 

Marilyn Stevens, Regional Administrator 



58 



GUARDIAN AD LITEM DIVISION 

(As of June 30, 1992) 



District Court 




District 


District Administrate 


1 


Veola Spivey 


2 


Jennifer Leggett 


3 A 


Catherine Darby 


3B 


Carol Mattocks 


4 


Jean Hawley 


5 


Jane Brister 


6A and 6B 


Patsey Moseley-Moss 


7 


Sandra Pittman 


8 


Claudia Kadis 


9 


Nina Freeman 


10 


Lloyd Inman 


12 


Brownie Smathers 


13 


Cynthia Canady and 




Betty Buck 


14 


Cy Gurney 


15A 


Eleanor Ketcham 


15B 


Floyd Wicker 



District Court 




District 


District Adminisl 


16A 


Julie Miller 


16B 


Gladys Pierce 


IN 


Sam Parrish 


19A and 19C 


Amy Collins 


19B 


Lee Malpass 


20 


Martha Sue Hall 


21 


Linda Garrou 


22 


Sherry Lott 


25 


Angela Phillips 


26 


Judi Strause 


27A 


Ginger Houchins 


27B 


Betsy Sorrell 


28 


Jean Moore 


29 


Barbara King 


30 


Celia Larson 



59 



COMMUNITY PENALTIES PROGRAM 



History 

The Communit) Penalties Act of 1983 created the 
Community Penalties Program to reduce prison over- 
crowding by providing judges with community sentenc- 
ing options to be used in lieu of and at less cost than 
imprisonment. Effective July 1. 1991, the General 
Assembly transferred the Community Penalties Program 
from the Department of Crime Control and Public 
Safety to the Administrative Office of the Courts. The 
Program awards and administers grants to local non- 
profit agencies for the provision of services. (The one 
exception is the program in Buncombe County, which 
was transferred to the Administrative Office of the 
Courts in 1987 and is not grant-funded.) 

Initially, five programs were funded in 1983. During 
1991-92. there were programs in 20 district court districts, 
serving 35 counties with over 60% of the state's popula- 
tion. The growth of these programs is not only in 
response to prison overcrowding, but also in recognition 
of the need for community sentences that are appropriate 
and effective for individual offenders. The extensive use 
of substance abuse treatment programs or other therapy, 
payment of restitution, performance of community 
service work, and maintenance of employment as condi- 
tions of probation have been proved to be effective 
sanctions for offenders who otherwise would have been 
incarcerated. 

Program Summary 

Under G.S. 7A-771, any defendant charged with a 
misdemeanor or Class H, I, or J felony (except involun- 
tary manslaughter) who is facing an imminent and sub- 
stantial threat of imprisonment may be eligible for 
Community Penalties Program services. Referral to the 
program is made by the defendant's attorney. Only 
defendants who are pleading guilty to their current 



charges and who agree to abide by the terms of a 
community penalties plan are accepted into the program. 
Offenders undergo a series of assessments that evaluate 
attributes such as existence of a chemical dependency, 
level of employment skills, and degree of socialization. If 
appropriate, a plan based on this information is 
developed. The plan may include recommendations 
regarding substance abuse treatment, other therapy, 
employment placement, restitution to be paid, family 
support considerations, and other factors such as the 
level of probation supervision necessary to assist the 
offenders in meeting their obligations. The community 
penalties plan is presented to the judge by the defendant's 
attorney. Should the judge accept all or part of the 
community penalties plan, the offender is placed under 
the supervision of a probation officer who oversees the 
offender's completion of each element of the plan. 

Appropriations and Program Operation 

In fiscal year 1991-92, the General Fund appropriation 
to the Administrative Office of the Courts for Commun- 
ity Penalties Program grants was $1,518,912. The 
programs added nearly $252,000 in local matching funds. 
In addition to management of grant funds, AOC admin- 
istrative staff provides technical assistance and training 
for local program staffs, and monitoring of program 
administration and performance. 

During 1991-92, programs targeted and contacted 
2,802 defendants, 1,365 of whom accepted program 
services. There were 812 plans presented in court. The 
sentencing judges accepted 680 of these plans, an increase 
of 22% over the number for the previous fiscal year. The 
average cost statewide per plan accepted was $2,274, 
more than $550 less than during 1990-91. At the end of 
fiscal year 1991-92, there were 1,646 offenders actively 
serving community penalty plans. 



60 



COMMUNITY PENALTIES PROGRAMS 
(As of June 30, 1992) 



The following is a list of the local programs operating during 1991-92, the district court district in which each is 
located, and the counties served by each. 



District 
Court 
District Program — Non-profit Corporation 

3B Neuse River Community Penalties Program — Neuse River 

Council of Governments 



4 Jacksonville Community Penalties Program, Inc. 

5 Community Penalties Program, Inc. 

Nash County Community Penalties Program — One Step Further, Inc. 

10 Community Penalties Program — ReEntry, Inc. 

12 Fayetteville Area Sentencing Center, Inc. 

14 Durham Community Penalties Program — Prison and Jail Project, Inc. 

15B Orange/Chatham Community Penalties Program — Dispute 

Settlement Center, Inc. 

16B Robeson County Community Penalties Program — Tuscarora 

Indian Nation, Inc. 

17A Rockingham/ Caswell Sentencing Alternatives Center — One Step 

Further, Inc. 

18 Guilford Sentencing Alternatives Center — One Step Further, Inc. 

20 Community Alternative Punishment Program — Citizens for 

Community Justice, Inc. 

21 Forsyth Community Penalties Program — One Step Further, Inc. 

22 Appropriate Punishment Options, Inc. 



25 Felony Alternative Sentencing Program — Repay, Inc. 

26 Mecklenburg Community Corrections, Inc. 

27A Gaston County Community Penalties Program, Inc. 

27B Alternative Community Corrections — Gaston County Community 

Penalties Program, Inc. 

28 Buncombe Alternatives 

29 Felony Alternative Sentencing Program — Western Carolinians 

for Criminal Justice, Inc. 



Counties Served 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 

Onslow 

New Hanover 
Pender 

Nash 

Wake 

Cumberland 

Durham 

Chatham 
Orange 

Robeson 

Caswell 
Rockingham 

Guilford 

Union 

Forsyth 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

Mecklenburg 

Gaston 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

Buncombe 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 



61 



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 

During 1991-92, arbitration programs were operating 
in 26 counties. Data on cases noticed for arbitration and 
on disposition of those cases are shown in the following 
table. 



62 



SUMMARY OF ARBITRATION ACTIVITY 
July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 



Cases Noticed for Arbitration 31 



Summary of De Novo Appeal Activity 





District 
Court 


Superior 
Court 


Total 


Cases 
Arbitrated 


De Novo 

Appeals 

Filed 


Trials 


Dismissal/ 
Other 


Pending 

6/30/92 


District 3A 

Carteret 

Craven 
Pamlico 


159 

236 
13 


5 

5 

4 


164 

241 

17 


77 

108 

8 


13 

IX 
2 


3 
5 



5 
I 



5 

12 
2 


District Totals 


408 


14 


422 


193 


33 


8 


6 


19 


District 3B 

Pitt 


276 


3 


279 


135 


26 


10 


13 


3 


District 14 

Durham 


348 


14 


362 


279 


75 


6 


X 


61 


District 15A 

Alamance 


104 


(J 


104 


98 


12 


5 


1 


6 


District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 


25 
139 






25 
139 


20 
104 




32 




17 




7 




8 


District Totals 


164 





164 


124 


32 


17 


7 


8 


District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 


8 

62 







8 

62 


7 
50 


4 
15 




2 


1 
3 


3 

10 


District Totals 


70 





70 


57 


19 


2 


4 


13 


District 25A 

Burke 
Caldwell 


7^ 
71 


1 

4 


80 

75 


57 
58 


15 

20 


3 
3 


5 

1 


7 
16 


District Totals 


150 


5 


155 


115 


35 


6 


6 


23 


District 25B 

Catawba 


185 


10 


195 


123 


43 


6 


13 


24 


District 27A 

Gaston 


205 


101 


306 


220 


83 


2S 


38 


17 



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



63 



Summary of Arbitration Activity, Continued 



Cases Noticed for Arbitration* 



Total 



64 
25 
11 
48 
15 

163 



20 

18 

5 

37 
22 

102 



Summary of De Novo Appeal Activity 





District 
Court 


Superior 
Court 


District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 


63 

25 
11 
45 
13 


1 




3 
2 


District Totals 


157 


6 


District 30A 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Macon 

Swain 


20 
18 

5 

37 
22 









District Totals 


102 





District 30B 

Haywood 
Jackson 


53 

53 




1 


District Totals 


106 


1 


TOTALS 


2,275 


154 



53 
54 

107 



2,429 



Cases 
Arbitrated 

49 

17 

5 

38 

12 

121 



9 

6 

4 

25 

16 

60 



47 
38 

85 



1,610 



De Novo 

Appeals 

Filed 

15 

2 

3 

10 

3 

33 




4 

6 
5 

15 



12 
3 

15 



421 
(26% of 
cases 
arbitrated) 



Trials 

2 







Dismissal/ 
Other 



16 



117 



Pending 

6/30/92 

6 

1 


5 
3 

15 



203 



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

arbitration. 



64 



CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION MEDIATION 



History 

In 19X3, 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 must 
refer contested custody and visitation issues raised in a 
domestic case to mediation before those issues are tried. 
(For good cause, the court may waive the mandatory 
setting of the case for mediation.) The mediation process 
is designed to provide a structured, confidential, non- 
adversarial setting that will facilitate 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 

During fiscal year 1991-92, custody mediation was 
introduced into District 28, bringing the number of 
custody mediation districts to four. Data on cases 
referred for mediation and on the disposition of those 
cases are shown in the following table. 



65 



CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION MEDIATION ACTIVITY 
July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 



District 12 

Cumberland 



"2 



Cases Mediated 



No 
Begin Agree- Agree- 

Pending Cases ment ment 

7/1/91 Referred Reached Reached Total 



441 



124 



S3 



207 



Cases Not Mediated 

Total End 

Completing Pending 

Removed 1 Settled 2 Total Process 6/30/92 



109 



128 



237 



444 



69 



District 26 

Mecklenburg 



43 



298 



108 



99 



207 



61 



16 



77 284 



57 



District 27A 

Gaston 



75 



213 



7S 



100 



78 



19 



43 



62 240 48 



District 28 ; 

Buncombe 



TOTALS 



190 



78 



1,030 



317 



14 



296 



21 
613 



196 



10 



31 



47 



190 386 999 221 



"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. 

"Settled" cases include those reported settled through consent agreement and those in which the parties reconciled. 

; The program in District 28 began in April 1992. 



66 



THE NORTH CAROLINA COURTS COMMISSION 



(Members as of June 30, 1992) 



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) 

Charles L. Steel IV, Research Triangle Park 

Paul Bowman Stam, Apex 

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

Robert W. Cook, Mocksville 

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 Freeman, Jr., Raleigh 

Administrative Officer of the Courts 



Appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives 

Donald M. Dawkins, Rockingham 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Robert C. Hunter, Marion 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Annie B. Kennedy, Winston-Salem 

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 S. Love, Chapel Hill 
District Court Judge 



67 



THE NORTH CAROLINA COURTS COMMISSION 



The North Carolina Courts Commission was reestab- 
lished by the 1979 General Assembly "to make continu- 
ing studies o\ the structure, organization, jurisdiction, 
procedures and personnel of the Judicial Department 
and of the General Court of Justice and to make 
recommendations to the General Assembly for such 
changes therein as will facilitate the administration of 
justice." 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 each to be 
appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the House, 



the President of the Senate, and the Chief Justice of the 
North Carolina Supreme Court. The Governor continues 
to appoint the Chair of the Commission, from among its 
legislative members. The non-voting ex officio member- 
ship of three persons remained 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. 

No funds were appropriated for the Courts Com- 
mission for the 1991-92 fiscal year and the Commission 
did not meet. 



68 



THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 



(Members as of June 30, 1992) 



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 



69 



THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 
July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 



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. 

Prior to September 6, 1991, the Commission used a 
disciplinary measure known as a private reprimand on 
18 occasions. The private reprimand was developed 
administratively to apply in circumstances involving 
improper conduct that did not warrant a recommenda- 
tion of censure or removal, but where some action was 
justified. Effective September 6, 1991, the Commission 
formalized a policy decision to issue no more private 
reprimands. The Commission adopted a new rule pro- 
viding for the issuance of a private admonition in circum- 
stances involving judicial conduct that justifies some 
action but that does not warrant a recommendation of 
censure or removal. Unlike the private reprimand, which 
could be issued at any stage of Commission proceedings 
after completion of a preliminary investigation, the 
private admonition cannot be issued once formal pro- 
ceedings against a judge have been instituted. Issuance of 



a private admonition does not bar future proceedings 
concerning similar conduct. In subsequent proceedings 
involving the same judge, the Commission may consider 
a prior matter that resulted in a private admonition. 
Since September 6, 1991, four private admonitions have 
been issued. 

During the 1991-92 fiscal year, the Judicial Standards 
Commission met on July 12, September 5 and 6, Novem- 
ber 22, February 7, and April 24. 

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." Thirty-five such inquiries 
were pending as of July 1, 1991, and 1 14 inquiries were 
filed during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a 
total workload of 149 inquiries. 

During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 
109 inquiries, and 40 inquiries remained pending at the 
end of the fiscal year. 

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

( 1 ) 90 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) 4 inquiries resulted in private admonitions; and 

(5) 3 inquiries resulted in recommendations of censure. 
Of the 40 inquiries pending at the end of the fiscal 

year: 

(1) 32 inquiries were awaiting initial review by the 
Commission; and 

(2) 8 inquiries were awaiting completion of a prelim- 
inary investigation or were subject to other action 
by the Commission. 



70 



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 he 
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 $7,268,823,057 for the 1991-92 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 1991- 
92 was $215,113,968. (This included $2,355,001 paid in 
July 1992 for accrued attorney fees for indigent 
defendants.) As illustrated in the chart below, this 
General Fund appropriation for the Judicial Department 
equaled 2.96% of the General Fund appropriations for 
the operating expenses of all State agencies and depart- 
ments. 




JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
APPROPRIATION 

$215,113,968 



2.96% 



73 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

Appropriations from the State's General Fund for Fund for operating expenses of all State agencies and 

operating expenses of the Judicial Department over the departments (including the Judicial Department) for the 

past seven fiscal years are shown in the table below and last seven fiscal years are also shown in the table below 

m the graph at the top of the following page. For and in the second graph on the following page. 
comparative purposes, appropriations from the General 



APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES 



Judicial Department All State Agencies 

Fiscal Year 

1985-1986 
1986-1987 
1987-1988 
1988-1989 
1989-1990 
1990-1991 
1991-1992 

AVERAGE ANNUAL 8.62% 8.08% 

INCREASE, 1986-1992 





%Ii 


lcrease over 




%Ii 


icrease over 


Appropriation 


previous year 


Appropriation 


previous year 


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 


215,113,968 




4.62 


7,268,823,057 




1.42 



74 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses 
Of the Judicial Department, 1985-86 — 1991-92 



$240,000,000 



200,000,000 



160,000,000 



1 20,000,000 



80,000 



40,000 




1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 



$8,000,000,000 
7,000,000,000 
6,000,000,000 
5,000,000,000 

4,000,000,000 
3,000,000,000 
2,000,000,000 
1,000,000,000 




General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses 
Of All State Agencies and Departments, 1985-86 — 1991-92 




1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 



75 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES 
July 1, 1991 — June 30, 1992 



General Fund expenditures for operating expenses of 
the Judicial Department during the 1991-92 fiscal year 



totaled $221,095,228, 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 
Appellate Defender Resource Center 
Indigency Screening 
Special 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 Centers 
Arbitration Program 

Sentencing & Policy Advisory Commission 

Community Penalties Program 

State Bar — Civil Justice Act 

Grant-Supported Projects 

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

TOTAL 







%of 




Amount 


Total 




$ 2,965,205 


1.34 




3,759,252 


1.70 




20,272,639 


9.17 




38,576,178 


17.45 




64,191,989 


29.03 




14,744,624 


6.67 




33,683,598 


15.23 


20,213,452 






50,309 






3,230,220 






6,905,749 






331,480 






1,063,866 






631,385 






405,457 






419,369 






432,311 








25,095,431 


11.35 


25,016,541 






78,890 








12,743,302 


5.76 


6,010,175 






6,233,259 






499,868 








86,177 


.04 




798,219 


.36 


152,518 






389,683 






256,018 








384,055 


.18 




1,735,939 


.79 




1,000,000 


.45 




1,058,620 


.48 


992,432 






10,863 






49,826 






5,499 








$221,095,228 


100.00% 



76 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES 
July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 



DISTRICT COURTS 17.45% 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 
OF THE COURTS 

5.76% 



COMMUNITY PENALTIES 
PROGRAM 0.79% 



REPRESENTATION FOR 
INDIGENTS 15.23% 



JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 0.04% 

JUVENILE SERVICES 6.67% 
DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAMS 0.36% 




DISTRICT ATTORNEY PROGRAMS 

11.35% 



SENTENCING & POLICY ADVISORY 
COMMISSION 0.18% 

STATE BAR CIVIL JUSTICE ACT 0.45% 



SUPERIOR COURTS 9.17% 

SUPREME COURT 1 .34% 
COURT OF APPEALS 1 .70% 
GRANT SUPPORTED PROJECTS 



CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 29.03% 



As the above chart illustrates, most (67.00%) of Judi- 
cial Department expenditures goes for operation of the 
State's trial courts: operation of superior courts took 
9.17% of total expenditures; the district courts (including 
magistrates, judges, and court reporters) took 17.45% of 
the total; and the clerks' offices, 29.03% of the total. 



Expenditures for district attorneys' programs represented 
11.35% of total Judicial Department expenditures, and 
representation for indigents required 15.23%. 

The total General Fund expenditure for the Judicial 
Department for 1991-92 was $221,095,228. 



$240,000,000 



200,000,000 



160,000.000 



120,000,000 



80,000,000 



40.000,000 



General Fund Expenditures For The Judicial Department 
1985-86 - 1991-92 




1985-86 



1986-87 



1987-88 



1988-89 



1989-90 



1990-91 



1991-92 



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. 



77 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT RECEIPTS 
July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 



Receipts for the Judicial Department in the 1991-92 
fiscal year totaled SI 38,086,949. The several sources of 
these receipts are shown in the table below. As in 



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



Source of Receipts 

Supreme Court Fees 

Court of Appeals Fees 

Miscellaneous 

Sales of Appellate Division Reports 

Grants 

Jail Fees 

Interest on Checking Accounts 

Department of Crime Control & Public Safety 

Ten-Day License Revocation Fees 

Indigent Representation Judgments 

Officer Fees 

LEOB Fees 

Judicial Facilities Fees 

Federal — Child Support Enforcement 

Fines and Forfeitures 

General Court of Justice Fees 

Total 



Amount 

$ 9,608 

30,095 

182,083 

227,274 

522,593 

761,900 

977,509 

1,576,545 

1,895,140 

3,903,444 

6,743,955 

7,954,629 

8,161,755 

9,851,858 

34,107,595 

61,180,966 

$138,086,949 



%of 
Total 

0.007 
0.022 
0.132 
0.164 
0.378 
0.552 
0.708 
1.142 
1.372 
2.827 
4.884 
5.761 
5.911 
7.134 
24.700 
44.306 

100.000% 



This total of $138,086,949 is an increase of 10.61% 
over the total 1990-91 receipts of $124,844,680. The graph 



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



Judicial Department Receipts, 1985-86 — 1991-92 



Si 40.000,000 



105.000.000 



70.000.000 



35.000.000 



$138,086,949 




1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 



7K 



DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT RECEIPTS 
July 1, 1991 -June 30, 1992 



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 



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 Indigent Representation Judgments 
Department of Crime Control & Public Safety 
Grants 

Miscellaneous 
Total Retained for Operations 

GRAND TOTAL 



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. 



Amount 

$ 9,608 

30,095 

227,274 

7,954,629 

61,180,966 

9,851,858 

79,254,430 

34,107,595 

7,847,077 

4,442,238 

751,327 

1,895,140 

49,043,377 

977,509 

314,678 

2,301,717 

10,573 

2,626,968 

3,903,444 

1,576,545 

522,593 

182,083 

6,184,665 

$138,086,949 



%of 
Total 

0.007 
0.022 
0.164 
5.761 

44.306 
7.134 

57.394 

24.700 
5.683 
3.217 
0.544 
1.372 

35.516 

0.708 

0.228 
1.667 
0.008 
1.903 

2.827 
1.142 
0.378 
0.132 
4.479 

100.000^ 



74 



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

July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 



Distributed to Counties 



County 

Alamance 

Alexander 

Alleghany 

Anson 

Ashe 

Avery 

Beaufort 

Bertie 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Buncombe 

Burke 

Cabarrus 

Caldwell 

Camden 

Carteret 

Caswell 

Catawba 

Chatham 

Cherokee 

Chowan 

Clay 

Cleveland 

Columbus 

Craven 

Cumberland 

Currituck 

Dare 

Davidson 

Davie 

Duplin 

Durham 

Edgecombe 

Forsyth 

Franklin 

Gaston 

Gates 

Graham 

Granville 

Greene 

Guilford 

Halifax 

Harnett 

Haywood 

Henderson 

Hertford 

Hoke 

Hyde 

Iredell 

Jackson 

Johnston 

Jones 

Lee 

Lenoir 

Lincoln 



Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


S 133.785 ! 


5 70,996 


S 23,422 


$ 504,483 


23,857 


19,233 


6,337 


144,844 


9,466 


7,382 


2,729 


57,004 


25,518 


16,167 


671 


153,077 


18,263 


17,797 


3,912 


74,590 


16,542 


14,069 


1,135 


69,836 


64,934 


57,916 


21,154 


280,265 


27,751 


26,148 


4,580 


134,547 


49,822 


48,926 


3,068 


259,551 


55,014 


38,694 


4,852 


292,407 


196,405 


140,469 


2,550 


919,126 


91,272 


43,292 


7,867 


397,786 


119,545 


69,131 


24,200 


602,526 


72,159 


34,855 


8,980 


378,383 


8,450 


8,477 


227 


45,684 


69,501 


39,442 


1,732 


245,503 


19,131 


18,905 


559 


116,862 


82,185 


62,572 


8,631 


658,221 


35,412 


42,711 


5,294 


226,331 


20,441 


21,240 


5,781 


129,094 


18,026 


17,607 


169 


74,189 


7,738 


7,247 


3,317 


42,037 


93,492 


52,863 


23,197 


392,645 


54,483 


58,544 


4,502 


261,655 


86,394 


41,282 


12,859 


326,297 


300,964 


127,508 


31,075 


1,057,340 


29,291 


2,689 


2,291 


120,171 


70,470 


33,909 


6,392 


357,410 


98,382 


93,074 


9,537 


630,600 


34,514 


31,529 


5,351 


145,752 


52,623 


41,938 


10,493 


260,660 


228,148 


108,676 


12,354 


1,089,525 


54,314 


32,972 


14,851 


279,414 


353,603 


44,416 


16,509 


1,356,449 


42,603 


32,316 


8,677 


253,200 


198,590 


123,538 


1,964 


540,685 


12,067 


11,483 


1,234 


55,838 


5,775 


4,735 


2,858 


36,625 


56,111 


37,567 


11,623 


295,913 


13,400 


11,578 


1,371 


61,685 


478,591 


79,381 


15,107 


1,583,806 


77,731 


70,124 


7,466 


339,359 


59,050 


53,780 


9,169 


347,691 


47,953 


40,258 


11,204 


233,340 


68,680 


48,033 


4,317 


384,099 


28,685 


24,963 


5,907 


168,454 


32,179 


25,485 


9,768 


206,564 


10,868 


10,782 


646 


51,675 


97,278 


66,697 


9,623 


565,721 


22,487 


20,890 


7,002 


125,901 


79,075 


86,460 


24,496 


483,765 


1 1 ,700 


9,949 


83 


32,995 


64,816 


43,277 


22,844 


281,087 


86,414 


47,254 


15,238 


406,199 


41,718 


30,570 


1 1 ,903 


181,594 



Distributed to Municipalities 
Facility Officer Jail 

Fees Fees Fees 



TOTAL 



o S 


43,822 $ 





$ 776,508 





989 





195,260 





452 





77,033 





2,899 





198,332 





2,092 





116,654 





1,415 





102,997 





12,895 





437,164 





567 





193,593 


209 


3,989 





365,565 


712 


18,890 





410,569 





27,856 





1,286,406 





15,407 





555,624 


35 


60,659 





876,096 





14,565 





508,942 











62,838 





21,194 





377,372 


9 


330 


45 


155,841 


45,799 


31,653 





889,061 


11,023 


1,322 


30 


322,123 





1,476 





178,032 





3,336 





113,327 











60,339 





11,161 





573,358 


2,710 


5,392 





387,286 


3,290 


24,440 





494,562 





78,625 





1,595,512 











154,442 





30,519 





498,700 


18,413 


14,514 





864,520 





319 





217,465 





805 


135 


366,654 





77,067 





1,515,770 


38,684 


29 229 


623 


450,087 


7,120 


167,978 





1,946,075 





473 





337,269 





66,270 





931,047 











80,622 





25 





50,018 


18 


9,754 


30 


411,016 











88,034 





222,963 





2,379,848 


3,175 


12,577 


20 


510,452 


11,555 


6,793 





488,038 


1,074 


4,645 





338,474 


25 


3,110 





508,264 





3,114 





231,123 





2,707 





276,703 











73,971 


16,137 


22,851 


110 


778,417 











176,280 


21,014 


8,148 





702,958 





280 





55,007 





21,252 





433,276 





23,607 





578,712 





3,920 





269,705 



xo 



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

July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 






County 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


TOTAL 


Macon 


$ 23,763 


S 19,920 


$ 3,408 


$ 128,990 


$ 


$ 1,068 


$ 


$ 177,149 


Madison 


13,775 


13,656 


1,312 


56,196 





698 





85 


637 


Martin 


41,761 


35,757 


9,045 


153,225 





2,154 





241 


942 


McDowell 


37,341 


30,625 


55 


172,146 





3,225 





243 


392 


Mecklenburg 


702,263 


180,537 





1,843,559 





441,164 





3,167 


523 


Mitchell 


10,230 


7,012 


1,924 


39,056 





1,960 





60 


182 


Montgomery 


32,498 


32,625 


4,214 


171,668 





2 229 





243 


234 


Moore 


65,423 


51,901 


137 


431,672 


3,545 


15,263 





567 


941 


Nash 


75,377 


95,456 


10,496 


375,831 


52,667 


33,886 


1,423 


645 


136 


New Hanover 


176,144 


60,270 


4,645 


595,817 


855 


46,446 





884 


177 


Northampton 


24,612 


24,788 


3,185 


152,177 


685 


2,080 





207 


527 


Onslow 


143,544 


83,606 


25,795 


475,514 





65,720 





794 


179 


Orange 


62,062 


59,641 


5,388 


353,720 


25,245 


16,457 


15 


522 


528 


Pamlico 


7,915 


7,060 


1,246 


36,512 











52 


733 


Pasquotank 


39,683 


23,798 


4,481 


220,591 





16,054 





304 


607 


Pender 


35,209 


31,566 


4,069 


176,208 





2,091 





249 


143 


Perquimans 


16,051 


13,634 


439 


65,574 





1,557 





97 


255 


Person 


37,524 


32,233 


5,151 


201,740 


60 


6,755 





283 


463 


Pitt 


133,771 


55,353 


13,619 


455,189 


7,455 


47,721 


415 


713 


523 


Polk 


13,125 


11,485 


185 


66,602 





95 





91 


492 


Randolph 


95,503 


78,496 


4,416 


576,109 


5,173 


16,894 





776 


591 


Richmond 


48,440 


31,247 


3,171 


271,339 





4,694 





358 


891 


Robeson 


118,424 


99,402 


15,452 


757,461 


26,482 


36,413 


5 


1,053 


639 


Rockingham 


95,496 


51,486 


7,993 


607,596 


1,635 


24,740 





788 


946 


Rowan 


102,255 


70,345 


18,022 


554,826 





40,010 





785 


458 


Rutherford 


61,429 


40,986 


5,008 


300,776 





9,683 





417 


882 


Sampson 


73,497 


69,245 


7,737 


321,007 





4,824 





476 


310 


Scotland 


48,228 


37,725 


8,834 


288,583 





10,063 





393 


433 


Stanly 


51,857 


23,867 


5,635 


330,514 





13,558 





425 


431 


Stokes 


34,552 


26,695 


244 


230,985 





395 





292 


871 


Surry 


67,121 


63,945 


3,059 


361,661 


2,630 


11,973 





510 


389 


Swain 


14,454 


12,800 


5,375 


92,411 





650 





125 


690 


Transylvania 


19,433 


23,187 


6,006 


98,977 





1,751 





149 


354 


Tyrrell 


16,620 


15,318 


943 


59,701 











92 


582 


Union 


79,897 


66,885 


10,176 


515,547 





16,455 





688 


960 


Vance 


63,702 


37,240 


6,645 


261,020 





7,171 





375 


778 


Wake 


615,447 


137,288 


23,600 


1,959,597 


5,743 


210,460 


178 


2,952 


313 


Warren 


21,169 


19,759 


2,650 


122,040 





376 





165 


994 


Washington 


16,634 


12,530 


2,138 


62,234 





3,198 





96 


734 


Watauga 


35,094 


25,704 


3,117 


119,319 





5,709 





188 


943 


Wayne 


110,636 


76,454 


11,272 


449,861 


1,500 


31,847 


7,545 


689 


115 


Wilkes 


64,254 


48,213 


15,023 


321,278 





2,112 





450 


880 


Wilson 


99,905 


94,373 


8,021 


331,857 





20,196 





554 


352 


Yadkin 


31,585 


25,808 


4,853 


176,458 





3,264 





241 


968 


Yancey 


11,709 


10,523 


71 


43,994 





313 





66 


610 


State Totals** 


$7,847,077 


$4,442,238 


$751,327 


$34,107,595 


$314,678 


$2,301,717 


$10,573 


$49,775 


205 



*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. 

**State totals may not equal the sum of county data due to rounding. 



COST AND CASE DATA ON REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENTS 

July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 



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 el 
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 3A, 3B, 12, 14, 15B, 
16A. 16B. 18, 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 justice 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 ensure 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, 1992. 

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, an indigent parent has a right to appointed 
counsel (G.S. 7A-587). 

The cost of all programs of indigent representation 
during the 1991-92 fiscal year totaled $33,683,598, which 
was 15.2% of total Judicial Department expenditures. 

Following is a summary of case and cost data for 
representation of indigents for the fiscal year July 1, 
1991, through June 30, 1992. 



X2 



COST AND CASE DATA ON REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENTS 

July 1, 1991 -June 30, 1992 



Assigned Private Counsel 

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

Guardian ad Litem for Juveniles 

Guardian ad Litem for 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 


Total 


Average 


of Cases* 


Cost 


Per Case 


837 


S 3,324,718 


$3,972 


64,069 


15,467,414 


241 


8,811 


1,421,320 


161 


73,717 


20,213,452 


274 



221 



38,251 



50,309 



3,230,220 



1,462 


372,053 


254 


669 


145,549 


218 


3,198 


917,666 


287 


3,219 


603,148 


187 


1,438 


322,278 


224 


1,225 


286,459 


234 


1,593 


362,706 


228 


4,659 


1,072,719 


230 


14,156 


1,706,452 


121 


3,408 


629,500 


185 


3,224 


487,219 


151 



6,905,749 



631,385 
405,457** 

331,480 



650,514 

24,048 

389,304 

1,063,866 

419,369 

432,311 

$33,683,598 



181 



*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 1991-92 year. 

**Of the total cost, approximately $275,305 (67.9 r f ) in federal grant funds were received for the operations of the Resource Center during 1991-92. 



83 



STATE MENTAL HEALTH HOSPITAL COMMITMENT HEARINGS 

July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 



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 
S33 1 .480 for the 199 1-92 fiscal year. There was a total of 
13.697 hearings held during the year, for an average cost 



per hearing of $24.20 for the special counsel service. 

The following table presents data on the hearings held 
at each of the mental health hospitals in 1991-92. The 
total number of hearings in 1991-92, 13,697, is a 4.0% 
increase from the 13,167 hearings in 1990-91. 



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 



Broughton Cherry 



1,027 

948 

1,217 

3,192 



397 



33 



52 



1,191 
356 
626 

2,173 



382 



18 



Dorothea 
Dix 



,007 
296 

538 



1,841 



362 



33 



John 
Umstead 



1,593 
587 
508 

2,688 



740 



107 



Totals 

4,818 
2,187 
2,889 

9,894 



188 


386 


250 


453 


1,277 


18 


14 


24 


30 


86 


28 


181 


41 


99 


349 


234 


581 


315 


582 


1,712 


366 


366 


328 


668 


1,728 


2 





4 


5 


11 


29 


16 


30 


67 


142 



1,881 






6 


24 


63 


4 


II 


S3 


119 


4 


16 





28 



210 



,614 


1,943 


1,591 


2,738 


7,886 


979 


384 


335 


705 


2,403 


,282 


827 


625 


674 


3,408 



3,875 



3,154 



2,551 



4,117 



13,697 



84 



ASSIGNED COUNSEL AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM 
Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1991 -June 30, 1992 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian ad Litem 



District 1 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


35 

184 
198 
396 

62 
640 

82 


6,640 
60,763 
64,293 

122,051 
19,352 

137,331 
14,765 


District Totals 


1,597 


425,195 


District 2 






Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 


581 
55 

208 
54 

193 


223,416 
24,435 
52,989 
18,780 
46,303 


District Totals 


1,091 


365,923 


District 3 A 






Pitt 


1,033 


771,569 


District Totals 


1,033 


771,569 


District 3B 






Carteret 
Craven 

Pamlico 


168 

977 
98 


81,375 

282,854 

24,515 


District Totals 


1,243 


388,744 


District 4 A 






Duplin 

Jones 

Sampson 


525 

63 

618 


140,822 

26,007 

179,655 


District Totals 


1,206 


346,484 


District 4B 






Onslow 


1,645 


385,728 


District Totals 


1,645 


385,728 


District 5 






New Hanover 
Pender 


2,395 
289 


574,047 
71,518 


District Totals 


2,684 


645,565 


District 6 A 






Halifax 


657 


187,376 


District Totals 


657 


187,376 


District 6B 






Bertie 

Hertford 

Northampton 


191 

323 
234 


80,923 
97,912 
81,230 


District Totals 


748 


260,065 



Number of Cases 



2 

6 

l 

4 
4 



17 



Expenditures 



100 



2,073 

400 

325 

275 



3,173 



300 





50 



350 



1.2X0 



1,280 



175 

1,150 



1,325 



250 
100 
_0 

350 



1,381 
1,381 

1,365 


1,365 

600 
600 



85 



ASSIGNED COUNSEL AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM 
Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian ad Litem 



District 7 A 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Nash 


1,062 


314,283 








District Totals 


1,062 


314,283 








District 7B-C 










Edgecombe 
Wilson 


991 
1,005 


280,394 

282,397 










District Totals 


1,996 


562,791 








District 8 A 










Greene 
Lenoir 


139 
986 


77,379 
298,569 










District Totals 


1,125 


375,948 








District 8B 










Wayne 


1,320 


412,331 








District Totals 


1,320 


412,331 








District 9 










Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 


540 
579 
516 
865 
213 


184,817 
122,624 
154,994 
229,389 
65,102 





6 

2 







1,400 

550 




District Totals 


2,713 


756,926 


8 


1,950 


District 10 










Wake 


6,884 


1,513,689 


1 


600 


District Totals 


6,884 


1,513,689 


1 


600 


District 11 










Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


1,143 

1,525 

941 


293,002 
411,891 
209,045 


3 


2 


520 



700 


District Totals 


3,609 


913,938 


5 


1,220 


District 12 










Cumberland 


1,498 


546,934 


3 


824 


District Totals 


1,498 


546,934 


3 


824 


District 13 










Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 


650 
716 
771 


178,866 
202,463 
197,045 


2 
3 



350 

650 




District Totals 


2,137 


578,374 


5 


1,000 


District 14 










Durham 


1,167 


434,108 


7 


1,830 


District Totals 


1,167 


434,108 


7 


1,830 



86 



ASSIGNED COUNSEL AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM 
Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1991 -June 30, 1992 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian ad Litem 



District 15 A 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Alamance 


1,573 


446,519 


4 


450 


District Totals 


1,573 


446,519 


4 


450 


District 15 B 










Chatham 
Orange 


124 

455 


35,780 
121,437 


() 
5 



4,871 


District Totals 


579 


157,217 


5 


4,871 


District I6A 










Hoke 
Scotland 


54 
162 


69,016 

41,669 


o 
2 



100 


District Totals 


216 


110,685 


2 


100 


District 16 B 










Robeson 


953 


248,795 


4 


350 


District Totals 


953 


248,795 


4 


350 


District 17 A 










Caswell 
Rockingham 


166 
1,199 


53,154 
384,651 


4 
4 


450 
750 


District Totals 


1,365 


437,805 


8 


1,200 


District 17 B 










Stokes 
Surry 


423 

898 


118,346 
254,296 

372,642 


19 



19 


2,405 



District Totals 


1,321 


2,405 


District 18 










Guilford 


921 


365,504 


11 


5,864 


District Totals 


921 


365,504 


11 


5,864 


District 19 A 










Cabarrus 


1,111 


280,443 








District Totals 


1,111 


280,443 








District 19 B 










Montgomery 
Randolph 


307 
1,091 


80,599 

320,178 


o 
6 




2.225 


District Totals 


1,398 


400,777 


6 


2,225 


District 19 C 










Rowan 


1,201 


374,072 


2 


155 


District Totals 


1,201 


374,072 


2 


155 


District 20 A 










Anson 
Moore 
Richmond 


501 
1,139 
1,226 


117,312 
263,036 
296,844 


o 

! 
1 




150 
150 


District Totals 


2,866 


677,192 


2 


300 



87 



ASSIGNED COUNSEL AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM 
Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian ad Litem 



District 20 B 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Stanly 
Union 


593 
1,284 


192,604 

281,657 


1 
2 


150 
350 


District Totals 


1,877 


474,261 


3 


500 


District 21 










Forsyth 


4,631 


862,601 


3 


325 


District Totals 


4,631 


862,601 


3 


325 


District 22 










Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 


420 
2,379 

272 
1,403 


112,666 

506,943 

81,076 

327,354 




7 


1 




1,075 



300 


District Totals 


4,474 


1,028,039 


8 


1,375 


District 23 










Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


79 
217 
723 
244 


17,518 

55,521 

148,494 

49,568 


1 
1 

5 



100 

125 

525 




District Totals 


1,263 


271,101 


7 


750 


District 24 










Avery 
Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


247 
149 
113 
316 
105 


55,070 
44,295 
36,038 
89,462 
34,533 





3 
3 

3 






1,840 

350 

400 


District Totals 


930 


259,398 


9 


2,590 


District 25 A 










Burke 
Caldwell 


864 
958 


208,733 
189,052 










District Totals 


1,822 


397,785 








District 25 B 










Catawba 


1,876 


388,904 


4 


550 


District Totals 


1,876 


388,904 


4 


550 


District 26 










Mecklenburg 


2,042 


835,781 


14 


3,921 


District Totals 


2,042 


835,781 


14 


3,921 


District 27 A 










Gaston 


256 


114,442 


2 


295 


District Totals 


256 


114,442 


2 


295 



ASSIGNED COUNSEL AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM 
Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1991 -June 30, 1992 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian ad Litem 



District 27 H 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Cleveland 
Lincoln 


569 
310 


153,144 
114,635 


6 




500 



District Totals 


879 


267,779 


6 


500 


District 28 










Buncombe 


618 


243,100 
243,100 


4 
4 


685 


District Totals 


618 


685 


District 29 










Henderson 
McDowell 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 


1,272 
444 
128 
650 
246 


243,023 
116,029 

70,936 
119,248 

73,319 


4 
2 
2 




1,275 
150 

1,150 




District Totals 


2,740 


622,555 


8 


2,575 


District 30 A 










Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Macon 

Swain 


226 

69 

84 

241 

144 


79,462 
19,236 
25,793 
51,851 
61,297 


1 



3 



210 




735 




District Totals 


764 


237,639 


4 


945 


District JOB 










Haywood 
Jackson 


432 
194 


100,369 
52,076 


1 



130 



District Totals 


626 


152,445 


1 


130 


STATE TOTALS 


73,717 


$20,213,452 


221 


$50,309 



89 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL 

(Positions and salaries authorized as of June 30, 1992) 

Positions 

Authorized Salary Ranges 
SUPREME COURT 

7 Justices $ 89,532-91,416* 

3 1 Staff personnel (Clerk's and Reporter's offices, law clerks, library staff) $ 16,854-67,352 

7 Secretarial personnel $ 28,785-30,019 

COURT OF APPEALS 

12 Judges $ 84,768-86,664* 

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

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

13 Secretarial personnel $ 17,554-28,785 

SUPERIOR COURT 

83 Judges $ 75,252-77,736* 

104 Staff personnel $ 17,554-50,244 

67 Secretarial personnel $ 17,554-33,950 

DISTRICT COURT 

179 Judges ., $ 63,864-66,396* 

653 Magistrates $ 16,536-28,236 

33 Staff personnel $ 8,427-32,042 

45 Secretarial personnel $ 10,529-27,968 

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

37 District Attorneys $ 70,032* 

350 Staff personnel $ 19,843-69,273 

140 Secretarial personnel $ 16,854-39,864 

CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

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

1,788 Staff personnel $ 16,236-34,740 

INDIGENT REPRESENTATION 

1 Appellate Defender $ 73,394 

8 Assistant Appellate Defenders $ 25,000-52,767 

3 Secretarial personnel $ 17,032-26,076 

1 Resource Center Director $ 63,000 

3 Resource Center staff personnel $ 23,952-50,000 

1 1 Public Defenders $ 70,032* 

99 Staff personnel $ 25,516-70,000 

36 Secretarial personnel $ 17,376-37,741 

4 Special counsel at mental health hospitals $ 14,000-41,340 

2 Assistants to Special Counsel $ 12,230 

4 Secretarial personnel $ 19,487-23,079 

1 Guardian ad Litem, Program Administrator $ 57,126 

3 Regional Administrators $ 28,744-38,529 

34 District Administrators $ 15,938-31,876 

35 Staff personnel $ 5,696-29,597 

8 Secretarial personnel $ 4,214-22,184 

JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 

1 Juvenile Services Administrator $ 70,571 

1 Juvenile Services Assistant Administrator $ 62,048 

4 Juvenile Services Area Administrators $ 38,618-59,695 

2 Staff personnel $ 20,695-41,172 

323 Court counselors S 25,516-47,382 

54 Secretarial personnel $ 8,879-30,223 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

1 Administrative Officer of the Courts S 77,736* 

1 Assistant Director $ 63,360* 

190 Staff personnel (includes Sentencing & Policy Advisory Commission) $ 17,948-85,453 

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



90 



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 four basic data tables for each case 
category: a caseload inventory (filings, dispositions, and 
pending) table; a table on the manner of disposition; 
a table on ages of cases pending at the end of the year; 
and a table on ages of cases disposed of during the year. 
Pending and disposed 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 1991-92 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, 1992, as well as the ages of the cases disposed of 
during 1991-92. 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, 1992, 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 are not 
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. 



43 



PART IV, Section 1 



Superior Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the 1991-92 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 1991-92, as in previous years, the greatest 
proportion of superior court filings was felonies (58.2%), 
followed by misdemeanors (27.8%) and civil cases 
(14.0%). Following the general trend over the past 
decade, the total number of case filings increased signifi- 
cantly. During 1991-92, total case filings in superior 
courts increased by 8.7% from the preceding fiscal year 
(from 135,419 total cases to 147,219). Filings of civil 
cases increased by 1.1%, and felony filings increased by 
16.0%, while misdemeanor filings decreased by 0.6%. 

Superior court civil cases generally take much longer 
to dispose of than do criminal cases. During 1991-92, the 
median age at disposition of civil cases was 276 days, 
compared to a median age at disposition of 97 days for 
felonies and 80 days for misdemeanors. A similar pattern 
exists for the ages of pending cases. The median ages of 
superior court cases pending on June 30, 1992, was 235 
days for civil cases, 1 19 days for felonies, and 1 16 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 1991-92, there were no "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 1990-91 to 1991-92, for civil cases, the median 
age at disposition increased from 272 days to 276 days, 
and the median age of cases pending at year-end in- 
creased from 228 days to 235 days. For felony cases, the 
median age at disposition increased from 96 days to 97 
days, and the median age of cases pending at year-end 
increased from 1 10 days to 1 19 days. For misdemeanor 
cases, the median age at disposition decreased from 83 
days to 80 days, but the median age of cases pending 
increased from 100 days to 1 16 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 45.6% of total civil filings in superior courts (9,361 
of 20,546 total civil filings). Contract cases comprised 
the next largest category of civil case filings, at 24.2% 
(4,967 filings). Felony case filings were dominated by the 
following types of cases: controlled substances violations, 
31.3% (26,855 of 85,748 total filings); burglary and 
breaking or entering, 20.3% (17,421 filings); forgery and 
uttering, 9.9%, (8,462 filings); and larceny, 9.5% (8,156 
filings). Non-motor vehicle appeals comprised 46.2% of 
misdemeanor filings in superior courts (18,921 of 40,925 
total filings). 

Case dispositions in 1991-92 increased by 7.3% over 
last fiscal year (from 129,302 to 138,711 superior court 
dispositions). Jury trials continued to account for a low 
percentage of case dispositions: 3.9% of civil cases (761 
of 19,455 civil dispositions); 2.8% of felonies (2,207 of 
79,680 felony dispositions); and 2.3% of misdemeanors 
(902 of 39,576 misdemeanor dispositions). Over half 
(53.8%) of all civil dispositions were by voluntary dis- 
missal ( 10,467 of 19,455 civil dispositions). As in previous 
years, most criminal cases were disposed of by guilty 
plea; 65.2% of all felony dispositions (51,932 of 79,680), 
and 36.0% of all misdemeanor dispositions (14,265 of 
39,576) were by guilty plea, with 80.6% of these being to 
the offense as charged. 

The total number of cases disposed of in superior 
courts in 1991-92 was 8,508 cases fewer than the total 
number of cases filed. Consequently, the total number of 
pending cases in superior courts increased from 66,309 at 
the beginning of the fiscal year to a total at year's end of 
74,817, an increase of 12.8%. 



97 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



1982-83 -- 1991-92 



1 160,000 



Dispositions 



End Pending 



120,000 



Number 
80,000 of 
Cases 



40,000 



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



3-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 



Superior court filings and dispositions have increased 
each of the last eight 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 8.7%, 7.3%, and 10.6%, respectively. 



98 



SUPERIOR COURT CASELOAD 



July 1, 1991 -June 30, 1992 



85,748 



79,680 



32,590 



18,765 



20 ' 546 19,455 19,856 





38,658 



40,925 



39,576 




Civil Felony 

EH Begin Pending ' I Filings LJ Dispositions 



Misdemeanor 
End Pending 



The number of cases pending in superior court increased 
in all categories during 1991-92. Pending civil cases 
increased by 5.8%, pending felonies by 18.6%, and 
pending misdemeanors by 9.0%. Compared to the prev- 
ious year's figures, civil filings increased by 1.1% and 



felony filings increased by 16.0%, but misdemeanor 
filings decreased by 0.6%. Civil dispositions decreased by 
1.4% and misdemeanor dispositions decreased by 0.5%, 
but felony dispositions increased by 14.1%. 



99 



MEDIAN AGES OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 

Median Ages (in Days) of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 



Civil 



Felony 



Misdemeanor 




235.0 



Median Ages (in Days) of Cases Disposed During Fiscal Year 1991-92 



Civil 



Felony 



Misdemeanor 




276.0 



Last year's median ages at disposition for civil cases (272 
days), felonies (96 days), and misdemeanors (83 days) 
were close to this year's ages. However, the median 



pending ages have increased over last year's, by 7 days 
for civil cases, by 9 days for felonies, and by 16 days for 
misdemeanors. 



100 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



1982-83 -- 1991-92 



Dispositions 




Filings 



25,000 



20,000 



15,000 



Number 

of 

Cases 



10,000 



5,000 



82-83 



83-84 



84-85 



85-86 



86-87 



87-88 



88-89 



89-90 



90-91 



91-92 



The number of civil superior court cases filed and the 
number pending at year's end have both increased each 
year for the past eight years. Dispositions decreased for 
the first time since 1983-84. During fiscal year 1991-92, 
civil filings in the superior courts increased by 1.1% over 
the previous year, while dispositions decreased by 1.4%. 



There were 20,546 civil cases filed and 19,455 disposed in 
the superior courts during 1991-92. The difference in 
these figures accounts for the 5.8% increase in the 
number of cases pending on June 30, 1992, as compared 
to the number pending on July 1, 1991. 



101 



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

July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 



Other (3,223) 



Contract (4,967) 



Administrative Appeal 
(302) 

1.5% 



Real Property (1,217) 



Other Negligence (2,402) 




Collection on Account 
(1,476) 



Motor Vehicle Negligence 
(6,959) 



While total civil filings in superior court increased by 
1.1% in fiscal year 1991-92, collection on account filings 
decreased by 18.2% (from 1,805 in fiscal year 1990-91 to 
1 ,476 in 1 99 1 -92), and contract filings decreased by 6.2% 
(from 5.294 in 1990-91 to 4,967 in 1991-92). Non-motor 
vehicle negligence, the category that includes profes- 
sional malpractice, increased by 14.2%, from 2,103 cases 



in fiscal year 1990-91 to 2,402 in 1991-92. Non-motor 
vehicle negligence filings, together with motor vehicle 
negligence filings (which increased by 6.2%, from 6,553 
in 1990-91 to 6,959 in 1991-92), accounted for much of 
the overall growth in the civil caseload. (The "other" 
category includes non-negligent torts such as conversion 
of property, civil assault, and civil fraud.) 



102 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1991 -- June 30, 1992 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/91 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/92 


District 1 














Camden 


9 


9 


18 


5 


27.8% 


13 


Chowan 


18 


28 


46 


23 


50.0% 


23 


Currituck 


87 


38 


125 


75 


60.0% 


50 


Dare 


168 


174 


342 


147 


43.0% 


195 


Gates 


15 


16 


31 


17 


54.8% 


14 


Pasquotank 


71 


78 


149 


68 


45.6% 


81 


Perquimans 


2b 


11 


37 


19 


51.4% 


18 


District Totals 


394 


354 


748 


354 


47.3% 


394 


District 2 














Beaufort 


S3 


76 


159 


78 


49.1% 


81 


Hyde 


17 


19 


36 


18 


50.0% 


18 


Martin 


70 


21 


91 


41 


45.1% 


50 


Tyrrell 


7 


7 


14 


4 


28.6% 


10 


Washington 


36 


27 


63 


34 


54.0% 


29 


District Totals 


213 


150 


363 


175 


48.2% 


188 


District 3A 














Pitt 


269 


337 


606 


313 


51.7% 


293 


District 3B 














Carteret 


151 


170 


321 


157 


48.9% 


164 


Craven 


204 


230 


434 


216 


49.8% 


218 


Pamlico 


25 


35 


60 


31 


51.7% 


29 


District Totals 


380 


435 


815 


404 


49.6% 


411 


District 4A 














Duplin 


92 


97 


189 


87 


46.0% 


102 


Jones 


30 


21 


51 


22 


43.1% 


29 


Sampson 


81 


78 


159 


82 


51.6% 


77 


District Totals 


203 


196 


399 


191 


47.9% 


208 


District 4B 














Onslow 


291 


278 


569 


259 


45.5% 


310 


District 5 














New Hanover 


644 


510 


1,154 


565 


49.0% 


589 


Pender 


74 


53 


127 


63 


49.6% 


64 


District Totals 


718 


563 


1,281 


628 


49.0% 


653 


District 6A 














Halifax 


127 


131 


258 


144 


55.8% 


114 



103 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/91 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/92 


District 6B 














Bertie 


52 


37 


89 


49 


55.1% 


40 


Hertford 


48 


38 


86 


37 


43.0% 


49 


Northampton 


51 


49 


100 


49 


49.0% 


51 


District Totals 


151 


124 


275 


135 


49.1% 


140 


District 7A 














Nash 


184 


231 


415 


204 


49.2% 


211 


District 7B-C 














Edgecombe 


104 


130 


234 


114 


48.7% 


120 


Wilson 


167 


253 


420 


185 


44.0% 


235 


District Totals 


271 


383 


654 


299 


45.7% 


355 


District 8A 














Greene 


25 


25 


50 


24 


48.0% 


26 


Lenoir 


173 


201 


374 


221 


59.1% 


153 


District Totals 


198 


226 


424 


245 


57.8% 


179 


District 8B 














Wayne 


277 


275 


552 


228 


41.3% 


324 


District 9 














Franklin 


77 


67 


144 


70 


48.6% 


74 


Granville 


70 


74 


144 


64 


44.4% 


80 


Person 


55 


45 


100 


57 


57.0% 


43 


Vance 


97 


89 


186 


88 


47.3% 


98 


Warren 


32 


24 


56 


28 


50.0% 


28 


District Totals 


331 


299 


630 


307 


48.7% 


323 


District 10A-D 














Wake 


2,020 


1,880 


3,900 


1,683 


43.2% 


2,217 


District 11 














Harnett 


138 


184 


322 


142 


44.1% 


180 


Johnston 


292 


258 


550 


255 


46.4% 


295 


Lee 


93 


103 


196 


89 


45.4% 


107 


District Totals 


523 


545 


1,068 


486 


45.5% 


582 


District 12A-C 














Cumberland 


446 


640 


1,086 


553 


50.9% 


533 



104 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1991 -- June 30, 1992 





Begin 




Pending 




7/1/91 


District 13 




Bladen 


99 


Brunswick 


187 


Columbus 


163 


District Totals 


449 


District 14A-B 




Durham 


681 


District 15A 




Alamance 


199 


District 15B 




Chatham 


54 


Orange 


228 


District Totals 


282 


District 16A 




Hoke 


24 


Scotland 


49 


District Totals 


73 


District 16B 




Robeson 


278 


District 17A 




Caswell 


13 


Rockingham 


122 


District Totals 


135 


District 17B 




Stokes 


27 


Surry 


115 


District Totals 


142 


District 18A-E 




Guilford 


1,180 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 


110 


District 19B 




Montgomery 


39 


Randolph 


158 


District Totals 


197 











End 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


led 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/92 


56 


155 


66 


42.6% 


89 


157 


344 


138 


40.1% 


206 


142 


305 


120 


39.3% 


185 



355 



759 



214 



77 
301 

378 



18 

75 

93 



350 



25 
168 

193 



42 
172 

214 



1,415 



186 



44 
187 

231 



804 



1,440 



413 



131 
529 

660 



42 
124 

166 



628 



38 
290 

328 



69 
287 

356 



2,595 
296 

83 

345 

428 
105 



324 



630 



231 



72 
314 

386 



17 

72 

89 



352 



25 
174 

199 



34 
176 

210 



1,223 



172 



52 
178 

230 



40.3% 



43.8% 



55.9% 



55.0% 
59.4% 

58.5% 



40.5% 
58.1% 

53.6% 



56.1% 



65.8% 
60.0% 

60.7% 



49.3% 
61.3% 

59.0% 



47.1% 



58.1% 



62.7% 
51.6% 

53.7% 



480 

810 

182 

59 
215 

274 



25 
52 

77 



276 

13 
116 

129 



35 
111 

146 



1,372 

124 

31 
167 

198 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Begin End 





Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/91 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/92 


District 19C 














Rowan 


159 


210 


369 


174 


47.2% 


195 


District 20A 














Anson 


59 


53 


112 


57 


50.9% 


55 


Moore 


132 


144 


276 


140 


50.7% 


136 


Richmond 


91 


151 


242 


105 


43.4% 


137 


District Totals 


282 


348 


630 


302 


47.9% 


328 


District 20B 














Stanly 


113 


92 


205 


94 


45.9% 


111 


Union 


197 


187 


384 


164 


42.7% 


220 


District Totals 


310 


279 


589 


258 


43.8% 


331 


District 21 A-D 














Forsyth 


730 


1,002 


1,732 


995 


57.4% 


737 


District 22 














Alexander 


44 


46 


90 


49 


54.4% 


41 


Davidson 


140 


186 


326 


172 


52.8% 


154 


Davie 


50 


68 


118 


55 


46.6% 


63 


Iredell 


220 


359 


579 


290 


50.1% 


289 


District Totals 


454 


659 


1,113 


566 


50.9% 


547 


District 23 














Alleghany 


16 


21 


37 


26 


70.3% 


11 


Ashe 


20 


17 


37 


24 


64.9% 


13 


Wilkes 


115 


161 


276 


159 


57.6% 


117 


Yadkin 


31 


43 


74 


36 


48.6% 


38 


District Totals 


182 


242 


424 


245 


57.8% 


179 


District 24 














Avery 


27 


42 


69 


31 


44.9% 


38 


Madison 


40 


35 


75 


30 


40.0% 


45 


Mitchell 


23 


32 


55 


31 


56.4% 


24 


Watauga 


89 


115 


204 


102 


50.0% 


102 


Yancey 


24 


27 


51 


30 


58.8% 


21 


District Totals 


203 


251 


454 


224 


49.3% 


230 


District 25A 














Burke 


164 


182 


346 


192 


55.5% 


154 


Caldwell 


159 


183 


342 


178 


52.0% 


164 


District Totals 


323 


365 


688 


370 


53.8% 


318 



106 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1991 --June 30, 1992 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/91 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/92 


District 25B 














Catawba 


409 


431 


840 


539 


64.2% 


301 


District 26A-C 














Mecklenburg 


3,074 


3,072 


6,146 


3,093 


50.3% 


3,053 


District 27A 














Gaston 


351 


599 


950 


586 


61.7% 


364 


District 27B 














Cleveland 


176 


184 


360 


152 


42.2% 


208 


Lincoln 


96 


114 


210 


91 


43.3% 


119 


District Totals 


272 


298 


570 


243 


42.6% 


327 


District 28 














Buncombe 


477 


575 


1,052 


544 


51.7% 


508 


District 29 














Henderson 


237 


213 


450 


149 


33.1% 


301 


McDowell 


58 


74 


132 


72 


54.5% 


60 


Polk 


28 


26 


54 


28 


51.9% 


26 


Rutherford 


74 


111 


185 


91 


49.2% 


94 


Transylvania 


74 


52 


126 


65 


51.6% 


61 


District Totals 


471 


476 


947 


405 


42.8% 


542 


District 30A 














Cherokee 


41 


35 


76 


25 


32.9% 


51 


Clay 


6 


10 


16 


6 


37.5% 


10 


Graham 


15 


20 


35 


13 


37.1% 


22 


Macon 


71 


57 


128 


50 


39.1% 


78 


Swain 


32 


14 


46 


15 


32.6% 


31 


District Totals 


165 


136 


301 


109 


36.2% 


192 


District 30B 














Haywood 


119 


111 


230 


85 


37.0% 


145 


Jackson 


62 


57 


119 


63 


52.9% 


56 


District Totals 


181 


168 


349 


148 


42.4% 


201 


State Totals 


18,765 


20,546 


39,311 


19,455 


49.5% 


19,856 



107 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1991 « June 30, 1992 



Final Order or Judgment 

Without Trial (Judge) 

(2,717) 



Voluntary Dismissal 
(10,467) 




Clerk (1,605) 



Other (1,323) 



Trial by Jury (761) 



Trial by Judge (2,582) 



Compared to 1990-91, civil dispositions in superior court 
decreased by 1.4%, from 19,730 to 19,455. Trial by jury 
dispositions decreased by 9.1%, from 837 in fiscal year 
1990-91 to 761 in 1991-92. This marks the seventh 
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 3.9% in 1991-92. [The 
"other" category includes miscellaneous dispositions 
such as discontinuance 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 (in days) of civil cases disposed by 
the various methods of disposition are as follows: 

Median Age at 
Disposition 

533.0 
263.0 
308.0 
284.0 
64.0 
182.0 



Manner of Disposition 

Trial by Jury 

Trial by Judge 

Voluntary Dismissal 

Final Order or Judgment Without Trial (Judge) 

Clerk 

Other 



108 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 



Trial by 



Jury 



Judge 



District 1 




Camden 





Chowan 





Currituck 





Dare 


4 


Gates 


2 


Pasquotank 





Perquimans 


2 


District Totals 


8 




2.3% 


District 2 




Beaufort 


4 


Hyde 





Martin 


2 


Tyrrell 





Washington 


1 


District Totals 


7 




4.0% 


District 3A 




Pitt 


12 




3.8% 


District 3B 




Carteret 


9 


Craven 


8 


Pamlico 


2 


District Totals 


19 




4.7% 


District 4A 




Duplin 


8 


Jones 





Sampson 


5 


District Totals 


13 




6.8% 


District 4B 




Onslow 


8 




3.1% 



2 


3 


6 


14 


16 


29 


16 


72 


1 


9 


13 


40 


1 


11 


55 


178 


15.5% 


50.3% 


3 


41 


3 


10 


3 


31 


1 


2 


1 


19 


11 


103 


6.3% 


58.9% 


57 


187 


18.2% 


59.7% 


33 


82 


26 


111 


4 


14 


63 


207 


15.6% 


51.2% 


17 


47 


2 


12 


10 


48 


29 


107 


15.2% 


56.0% 


46 


159 


17.8% 


61.4% 



Judge's Final 
Order or 
Voluntary Judgment 

Dismissal Without Trial 






9 
26 
2 
4 
3 



44 
12.4% 



19 


4 
1 
6 

30 

17.1% 



1 
0.3% 



14 

37 

7 

58 

14.4% 



8 

4 

12 

24 
12.6% 



22 
8.5% 



Clerk 



3 
5 

17 

3 


28 
7.9% 



7 
2 

1 

7 

17 
9.7% 



27 



9 

16 



25 
6.2% 



3 
2 
7 

12 
6.3% 



12 
4.6% 





Total 


Dther 


Disposed 





5 





23 


16 


75 


12 


147 


3 


17 


8 


68 


2 


19 


41 


354 


11.6% 


100.0% 


4 


78 


3 


18 





41 





4 





34 


7 


175 


4.0% 


100.0% 


29 


313 


9.3% 


100.0% 


10 


157 


18 


216 


4 


31 


32 


404 


7.9% 


100.0% 


4 


87 


2 


22 





82 


6 


191 


3.1% 


100.0% 


12 


259 


4.6% 


100.0% 



109 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 


Trial by 
Jury 

20 
3 


Judge 

29 
6 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 

328 

37 


Judge's Final 
Order or 
Judgment 

Without Trial 

154 
9 


Clerk 

24 
2 


Other 

10 
6 


Total 
Disposed 

565 
63 


District Totals 


23 
3.7% 


35 
5.6% 


365 
58.1% 


163 
26.0% 


26 
4.1% 


16 

2.5% 


628 
100.0% 


District 6A 

Halifax 


5 

3.5% 


39 
27.1% 


85 
59.0% 


6 
4.2% 


5 
3.5% 


4 
2.8% 


144 
100.0% 


District 6B 

Bertie 
Hertford 

Northampton 



1 

1 


6 

7 

10 


22 
23 
33 


15 
3 
2 


4 
3 
3 


2 




49 

37 
49 


District Totals 


2 
1.5% 


23 
17.0% 


78 
57.8% 


20 
14.8% 


10 
7.4% 


2 
1.5% 


135 
100.0% 


District 7A 

Nash 


2 

1.0% 


6 
2.9% 


128 
62.7% 


44 
21.6% 


20 
9.8% 


4 
2.0% 


204 
100.0% 


District 7B-C 

Edgecombe 
Wilson 


3 
9 


6 
26 


85 
124 


8 
10 


8 
12 


4 
4 


114 
185 


District Totals 


12 
4.0% 


32 
10.7% 


209 
69.9% 


18 
6.0% 


20 
6.7% 


8 
2.7% 


299 
100.0% 


District 8A 

Greene 
Lenoir 


1 
7 




15 


17 
119 


3 
52 


1 

25 


2 
3 


24 
221 


District Totals 


8 
3.3% 


15 

6.1% 


136 
55.5% 


55 
22.4% 


26 
10.6% 


5 
2.0% 


245 
100.0% 


District 8B 

Wayne 


12 
5.3% 


31 

13.6% 


136 

59.6% 


31 
13.6% 


16 
7.0% 


2 
0.9% 


228 
100.0% 



110 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 

CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1991 --June 30, 1992 



Trial by 



Jury 



Judge 



District 9 




Franklin 


4 


Granville 


1 


Person 





Vance 


2 


Warren 


5 


District Totals 


12 




3.9% 


District 10A-D 




Wake 


50 




3.0% 


District 11 




Harnett 


10 


Johnston 


10 


Lee 


7 


District Totals 


27 




5.6% 


District 12A-C 




Cumberland 


19 




3.4% 


District 13 




Bladen 


3 


Brunswick 


7 


Columbus 


7 


District Totals 


17 




5.2% 


District 14A-B 




Durham 


23 




3.7% 


District 15A 




Alamance 


13 




5.6% 


District 15B 




Chatham 


5 


Orange 


15 


District Totals 


20 




5.2% 



5 


39 


9 


41 


9 


37 


24 


55 


4 


13 


51 


185 


16.6% 


60.3% 


149 


844 


8.9% 


50.1% 


7 


SO 


5 


143 


IS 


54 


30 


277 


6.2% 


57.0% 


53 


345 


9.6% 


62.4% 


7 


41 


9 


70 


10 


82 


26 


193 


8.0% 


59.6% 


61 


309 


9.7% 


49.0% 


17 


98 


7.4% 


42.4% 


6 


35 


94 


132 


100 


167 


25.9% 


43.3% 



Judge's Final 
Order or 
Voluntary Judgment 

Dismissal Without Trial 



11 
10 

5 

1 

4 

31 
10.1% 

301 
17.9% 



37 

67 

6 

110 

22.6% 



61 
11.0% 



6 
33 
13 

52 
16.0% 



47 
7.5% 



35 

15.2% 



16 
12 

28 
7.3% 







Total 


"lerk 


Other 


Disposed 


11 





70 


3 





64 


4 


2 


57 


4 


2 


88 


2 





28 


24 


4 


307 


7.8% 


1.3% 


100.0% 


130 


209 


1,683 


7.7% 


12.4% 


100.0% 


7 


1 


142 


17 


13 


255 


4 





89 


28 


14 


486 


5.8% 


2.9% 


100.0% 


38 


37 


553 


6.9% 


6.7% 


100.0% 


6 


3 


66 


14 


5 


138 


5 


3 


120 


25 


11 


324 


7.7% 


3.4% 


100.0% 


108 


82 


630 


17.1% 


13.0% 


100.0% 


26 


42 


231 


11.3% 


18.2% 


100.0% 


4 


6 


72 


26 


35 


314 


30 


41 


386 


7.8% 


10.6% 


100.0% 



111 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



District 16A 

Hoke 

Scotland 


Jury 



1 


Trial by 

Judge 

5 
3 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 

10 
50 


Judge's Final 
Order or 
Judgment 

Without Trial 

1 
7 


Clerk 

1 
4 


Other 



7 


Total 
Disposed 

17 
72 


District Totals 


1 
1.1% 


8 
9.0% 


60 
67.4% 


8 
9.0% 


5 
5.6% 


7 
7.9% 


89 
100.0% 


District 16B 

Robeson 


16 
4.5% 


52 

14.8% 


243 
69.0% 


12 
3.4% 


17 
4.8% 


12 
3.4% 


352 
100.0% 


District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 



6 


5 
44 


15 
95 


1 
5 




13 


4 
11 


25 
174 


District Totals 


6 
3.0% 


49 
24.6% 


110 
55.3% 


6 
3.0% 


13 
6.5% 


15 

7.5% 


199 

100.0% 


District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 


1 
6 


5 

15 


23 
94 


5 
45 



10 



6 


34 
176 


District Totals 


7 
3.3% 


20 
9.5% 


117 
55.7% 


50 
23.8% 


10 
4.8% 


6 

2.9% 


210 
100.0% 


District 18A-E 

Guilford 


46 
3.8% 


204 
16.7% 


658 
53.8% 


164 
13.4% 


83 
6.8% 


68 
5.6% 


1,223 
100.0% 


District 19A 

Cabarrus 


5 
2.9% 


20 
11.6% 


103 
59.9% 


25 
14.5% 


8 
4.7% 


11 
6.4% 


172 
100.0% 


District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 




11 


17 
36 


28 
93 




18 


7 
10 



10 


52 
178 


District Totals 


11 

4.8% 


53 
23.0% 


121 
52.6% 


18 
7.8% 


17 
7.4% 


10 
4.3% 


230 
100.0% 


District 19C 

Rowan 


15 

8.6% 


8 

4.6% 


111 
63.8% 


18 
10.3% 


10 
5.7% 


12 
6.9% 


174 
100.0% 



112 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 

CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 



Trial by 



Jury 



Judge 



District 20A 




Anson 


5 


Moore 


8 


Richmond 


3 


District Totals 


16 




5.3% 


District 20B 




Stanly 


3 


Union 


7 


District Totals 


10 




3.9% 


District 21A-D 




Forsyth 


47 




4.7% 


District 22 




Alexander 


4 


Davidson 


7 


Davie 


4 


Iredell 


17 


District Totals 


32 




5.7% 


District 23 




Alleghany 


1 


Ashe 


2 


Wilkes 


1 


Yadkin 


2 


District Totals 


6 




2.4% 


District 24 




Avery 


1 


Madison 


2 


Mitchell 


3 


Watauga 


3 


Yancey 


3 


District Totals 


12 




5.4% 



Judge's Final 
Order or 
Voluntary Judgment 

Dismissal Without Trial Clerk 



5 


35 


28 


72 


14 


72 


47 


179 


15.6% 


59.3% 


10 


66 


40 


99 


50 


165 


19.4% 


64.0% 


104 


506 


10.5% 


50.9% 


6 


16 


34 


108 


10 


33 


33 


168 


83 


325 


14.7% 


57.4% 


4 


15 


7 


12 


56 


83 


2 


18 


69 


128 


28.2% 


52.2% 


7 


15 


2 


15 


6 


12 


9 


52 


2 


14 


26 


108 


11.6% 


48.2% 



11 

8 
6 

25 
8.3% 



6 
9 

15 

5.8% 



170 
17.1% 



17 
5 

1 
44 

67 
11.8% 



4 
3 
5 

11 

23 
9.4% 



3 
9 
5 
21 
5 

43 
19.2% 



1 

9 
5 

15 
5.0% 



4 
7 

11 

4.3% 



110 
11.1% 



4 
12 

3 
18 

37 
6.5% 



1 



11 

1 

13 
5.3% 



1 
1 
1 
9 
1 

13 
5.8% 





Total 


ther 


Disposed 





57 


15 


140 


5 


105 


20 


302 


6.6% 


100.0% 


5 


94 


2 


164 


7 


258 


2.7% 


100.0% 


58 


995 


5.8% 


100.0% 


2 


49 


6 


172 


4 


55 


10 


290 


22 


566 


3.9% 


100.0% 


1 


26 





24 


3 


159 


2 


36 


6 


245 


2.4% 


100.0% 


4 


31 


1 


30 


4 


31 


8 


102 


5 


30 


22 


224 


9.8% 


100.0% 



113 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



Trial by 



Jury 



Judge 



District 25A 

Burke 
Caldwell 


12 

5 


District Totals 


17 
4.6% 


District 25B 

Catawba 


24 
4.5% 


District 26A-C 

Mecklenburg 


49 
1.6% 


District 27A 

Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 


30 

5.1% 

7 
9 


District Totals 


16 
6.6% 


District 28 

Buncombe 


48 
8.8% 


District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Pclk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 


9 
2 

4 
2 


District Totals 


17 

4.2% 


District 30A 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Macon 

Swain 


3 

1 
1 
1 
3 


District Totals 


9 

8.3% 



38 


103 


37 


101 


75 


204 


20.3% 


55.1% 


49 


275 


9.1% 


51.0% 


410 


1,568 


13.3% 


50.7% 


40 


322 


6.8% 


54.9% 


16 


89 


14 


49 


30 


138 


12.3% 


56.8% 


147 


247 


27.0% 


45.4% 


16 


61 


15 


36 


2 


16 


21 


43 


6 


35 


60 


191 


14.8% 


47.2% 


4 


11 


2 


1 


2 


H 


8 


16 


1 


6 


17 


42 


15.6% 


38.5% 



Judge's Final 
Order or 
Voluntary Judgment 

Dismissal Without Trial 



12 

17 



29 



145 
26.9% 



447 
14.5% 



106 
18.1% 

15 

14 

29 
11.9% 



19 
3.5% 



44 

9 

2 

4 
15 

74 
18.3% 



4 

2 

1 

10 

5 

22 

20.2% 



Clerk 


Other 


Total 
Disposed 


14 
16 


13 

2 


192 

178 


30 
8.1% 


15 
4.1% 


370 
100.0% 


38 
7.1% 


8 
1.5% 


539 
100.0% 


386 
12.5% 


233 
7.5% 


3,093 
100.0% 


23 
3.9% 


65 
11.1% 


586 
100.0% 


15 
4 


10 

1 


152 
91 


19 

7.8% 


11 

4.5% 


243 
100.0% 


41 
7.5% 


42 
7.7% 


544 
100.0% 


9 

4 
5 

12 
6 


10 
6 
3 
7 

1 


149 
72 
28 
91 
65 


36 
8.9% 


27 
6.7% 


405 
100.0% 


2 


5 



1 

1 
10 



25 

6 

13 

50 

15 


7 
6.4% 


12 
11.0% 


109 
100.0% 



114 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 











Judge's Final 
















Order or 












Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 




Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 30B 
















Haywood 


7 


23 


29 


13 


6 


7 


85 


Jackson 


2 


9 


21 


8 


4 


19 


63 


District Totals 


9 


32 


50 


21 


10 


26 


148 




6.1% 


21.6% 


33.8% 


14.2% 


6.8% 


17.6% 


100.0% 


State Totals 


761 


2,582 


10,467 


2,717 


1,605 


1,323 


19,455 




3.9% 


13.3% 


53.8% 


14.0% 


8.2% 


6.8% 


100.0% 



115 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 







Ages of Pending ( 


"ases (Monti 


IS) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 




<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 1 




















Camden 


9 


69.2% 


3 


23.1% 


1 


7.7% 


13 


371.9 


292.0 


Chowan 


IS 


78.3% 


1 


4.3% 


4 


17.4% 


23 


251.9 


145.0 


Currituck 


22 


44.0% 


19 


38.0% 


9 


18.0% 


50 


460.8 


418.5 


Dare 


110 


56.4% 


43 


22.1% 


42 


21.5% 


195 


427.0 


286.0 


Gates 


8 


57.1% 


4 


28.6% 


2 


14.3% 


14 


380.2 


235.5 


Pasquotank 


40 


60.5% 


23 


28.4% 


9 


11.1% 


81 


365.0 


260.0 


Perquimans 


9 


50.0% 


5 


27.8% 


4 


22.2% 


18 


446.5 


334.5 


District Totals 


225 


57.1% 


98 


24.9% 


71 


18.0% 


394 


405.7 


284.5 


District 2 




















Beaufort 


45 


55.6% 


26 


32.1% 


10 


12.3% 


81 


372.8 


326.0 


Hyde 


10 


55.6% 


1 


5.6% 


7 


38.9% 


18 


756.1 


283.0 


Martin 


16 


32.0% 


20 


40.0% 


14 


28.0% 


50 


582.7 


444.0 


Tyrrell 


5 


50.0% 


2 


20.0% 


3 


30.0% 


10 


706.9 


393.0 


Washington 


15 


51.7% 


8 


27.6% 


6 


20.7% 


29 


512.6 


292.0 


District Totals 


91 


48.4% 


57 


30.3% 


40 


21.3% 


188 


504.6 


385.5 


District 3A 




















Pitt 


198 


67.6% 


75 


25.6% 


20 


6.8% 


293 


311.7 


230.0 


District 3B 




















Carteret 


108 


65.9% 


43 


26.2% 


13 


7.9% 


164 


301.4 


233.0 


Craven 


148 


67.9% 


55 


25.2% 


15 


6.9% 


218 


297.0 


239.5 


Pamlico 


22 


75.9% 


6 


20.7% 


1 


3.4% 


29 


286.0 


228.0 


District Totals 


278 


67.6% 


104 


25.3% 


29 


7.1% 


411 


298.0 


235.0 


District 4A 




















Duplin 


59 


57.8% 


26 


25.5% 


17 


16.7% 


102 


395.1 


272.5 


Jones 


14 


48.3% 


6 


20.7% 


9 


31.0% 


29 


782.8 


397.0 


Sampson 


47 


61.0% 


22 


28.6% 


8 


10.4% 


77 


398.0 


257.0 


District Totals 


120 


57.7% 


54 


26.0% 


34 


16.3% 


208 


450.2 


276.0 


District 4B 




















Onslow 


198 


63.9% 


75 


24.2% 


37 


11.9% 


310 


341.1 


263.0 


DLstrict 5 




















New Hanover 


345 


58.6% 


190 


32.3% 


54 


9.2% 


589 


348.2 


309.0 


Pender 


38 


59.4% 


21 


32.8% 


5 


7.8% 


64 


341.4 


234.5 


District Totals 


383 


58.7% 


211 


32.3% 


59 


9.0% 


653 


347.5 


306.0 


District 6A 




















Halifax 


82 


71.9% 


21 


18.4% 


11 


9.6% 


114 


306.9 


214.5 



116 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 





<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Pending 


Age (Days) 


Age (Day 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


21 


52.5% 


12 


30.0% 


7 


17.5% 


40 


493.0 


315.5 


Hertford 


27 


55.1% 


13 


26.5% 


9 


18.4% 


49 


395.0 


274.0 


Northampton 


29 


56.9% 


11 


21.6% 


11 


21.6% 


51 


411.7 


336.0 


District Totals 


77 


55.0% 


36 


25.7% 


27 


19.3% 


140 


429.1 


308.0 


District 7A 




















Nash 


130 


61.6% 


46 


21.8% 


35 


16.6% 


211 


378.7 


267.0 


District 7B-C 




















Edgecombe 


84 


70.0% 


23 


19.2% 


13 


10.8% 


120 


270.9 


172.0 


Wilson 


176 


74.9% 


45 


19.1% 


14 


6.0% 


235 


262.9 


160.0 


District Totals 


260 


73.2% 


68 


19.2% 


27 


7.6% 


355 


265.6 


166.0 


District 8A 




















Greene 


17 


65.4% 


5 


19.2% 


4 


15.4% 


26 


327.6 


254.5 


Lenoir 


101 


66.0% 


43 


28.1% 


9 


5.9% 


153 


297.1 


256.0 


District Totals 


118 


65.9% 


48 


26.8% 


13 


7.3% 


179 


301.5 


256.0 


District 8B 




















Wayne 


196 


60.5% 


79 


24.4% 


49 


15.1% 


324 


378.7 


283.0 


District 9 

Franklin 


44 


59.5% 


27 


36.5% 


3 


4.1% 


74 


329.0 


253.0 


Granville 


55 


68.8% 


17 


21.3% 


8 


10.0% 


80 


350.0 


282.5 


Person 


26 


60.5% 


8 


18.6% 


9 


20.9% 


43 


418.3 


272.0 


Vance 


63 


64.3% 


26 


26.5% 


9 


9.2% 


98 


365.7 


247.5 


Warren 


15 


53.6% 


7 


25.0% 


6 


21.4% 


28 


527.2 


337.5 


District Totals 


203 


62.8% 


85 


26.3% 


35 


10.8% 


323 


374.4 


271.0 


District 10A-D 




















Wake 


1,344 


60.6% 


665 


30.0% 


208 


9.4% 


2,217 


346.8 


272.0 


District 11 




















Harnett 


127 


70.6% 


45 


25.0% 


8 


4.4% 


180 


261.5 


183.0 


Johnston 


176 


59.7% 


84 


28.5% 


35 


11.9% 


295 


357.7 


305.0 


Lee 


80 


74.8% 


21 


19.6% 


6 


5.6% 


107 


266.0 


211.0 


District Totals 


383 


65.8% 


150 


25.8% 


49 


8.4% 


582 


311.1 


250.0 


District 12A-C 




















Cumberland 


440 


82.6% 


87 


16.3% 


6 


1.1% 


533 


221.0 


193.0 


District 13 




















Bladen 


44 


49.4% 


43 


48.3% 


2 


2.2% 


89 


343.7 


371.0 


Brunswick 


117 


56.8% 


70 


34.0% 


19 


9.2% 


206 


348.2 


288.0 


Columbus 


113 


61.1% 


52 


28.1% 


20 


10.8% 


185 


352.6 


294.0 


District Totals 


274 


57.1% 


165 


34.4% 


41 


8.5% 


480 


349.1 


303.0 



17 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



Total Mean Median 





<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Pending 


Age (Days) 


Age (Day 


District 14A-B 




















Durham 


523 


64.6% 


212 


26.2% 


75 


9.3% 


810 


328.4 


263.0 


District 15A 




















Alamance 


148 


81.3% 


27 


14.8% 


7 


3.8% 


182 


223.0 


170.5 


District 15B 




















Chatham 


54 


91.5% 


5 


8.5% 





0.0% 


59 


154.6 


138.0 


Orange 


164 


76.3% 


45 


20.9% 


6 


2.8% 


215 


226.8 


175.0 


District Totals 


218 


79.6% 


50 


18.2% 


6 


2.2% 


274 


211.3 


160.0 


District 16A 




















Hoke 


14 


56.0% 


8 


32.0% 


3 


12.0% 


25 


359.1 


224.0 


Scotland 


44 


84.6% 


6 


11.5% 


2 


3.8% 


52 


233.9 


215.0 


District Totals 


58 


75.3% 


14 


18.2% 


5 


6.5% 


77 


274.5 


221.0 


District 16B 




















Robeson 


234 


84.8% 


36 


13.0% 


6 


2.2% 


276 


198.0 


132.0 


District 17A 




















Caswell 


12 


92.3% 


1 


7.7% 





0.0% 


13 


187.6 


218.0 


Rockingham 


102 


87.9% 


12 


10.3% 


2 


1.7% 


116 


198.7 


147.0 


District Totals 


114 


88.4% 


13 


10.1% 


2 


1.6% 


129 


197.6 


151.0 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


29 


82.9% 


6 


17.1% 





0.0% 


35 


205.3 


169.0 


Surry 


107 


96.4% 


4 


3.6% 





0.0% 


111 


153.7 


131.0 


District Totals 


136 


93.2% 


10 


6.8% 





0.0% 


146 


166.0 


139.5 


District 18A-E 




















Guilford 


988 


72.0% 


342 


24.9% 


42 


3.1% 


1,372 


270.1 


230.0 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


114 


91.9% 


9 


7.3% 


1 


0.8% 


124 


166.5 


130.0 


District 19B 




















Montgomery 


25 


80.6% 


3 


9.7% 


3 


9.7% 


31 


242.7 


176.0 


Randolph 


132 


79.0% 


28 


16.8% 


7 


4.2% 


167 


252.9 


193.0 


District Totals 


157 


79.3% 


31 


15.7% 


10 


5.1% 


198 


251.3 


193.0 


District 19C 




















Rowan 


153 


78.5% 


41 


21.0% 


1 


0.5% 


195 


240.7 


246.0 



118 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) Total Mean Median 

<12 % 12-24 % >24 % Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 

3 5.5% 

9 6.6% 

10 7.3% 

65 19.8% 22 6.7% 328 296.1 211.0 



25 22.5% 15 13.5% 111 490.0 291.0 

65 29.5% 21 9.5% 220 334.4 270.0 

90 27.2% 36 10.9% 331 386.6 284.0 



District 20A 






Anson 


42 


76.4% 


Moore 


94 


69.1% 


Richmond 


105 


76.6% 


District Totals 


241 


73.5% 


District 20B 






Stanly 


71 


64.0% 


Union 


134 


60.9% 


District Totals 


205 


61.9% 


District 21A-D 






Forsyth 


609 


82.6% 


District 22 






Alexander 


30 


73.2% 


Davidson 


125 


81.2% 


Davie 


48 


76.2% 


Iredell 


231 


79.9% 


District Totals 


434 


79.3% 


District 23 






Alleghany 


10 


90.9% 


Ashe 


10 


76.9% 


Wilkes 


103 


88.0% 


Yadkin 


32 


84.2% 


District Totals 


155 


86.6% 


District 24 






Avery 


33 


86.8% 


Madison 


29 


64.4% 


Mitchell 


22 


91.7% 


Watauga 


76 


74.5% 


Yancey 


15 


71.4% 


District Totals 


175 


76.1% 


District 25A 






Burke 


120 


77.9% 


Caldwell 


130 


79.3% 


District Totals 


250 


78.6% 


District 25B 






Catawba 


261 


86.7% 


District 26A-C 






Mecklenburg 


1,919 


62.9% 



10 


18.2% 


33 


24.3% 


22 


16.1% 



55 


235.5 


147.0 


36 


314.1 


204.0 


37 


302.6 


235.0 



95 12.9% 33 4.5% 737 225.2 155.0 



10 


24.4% 


24 


15.6% 


13 


20.6% 


52 


18.0% 






0.0% 


3 


23.1% 


4 


12.0% 


5 


13.2% 



5 


13.2% 


11 


24.4% 


2 


8.3% 


22 


21.6% 


4 


19.0% 



1 


2.4% 


5 


3.2% 


2 


3.2% 


6 


2.1% 



1 


9.1% 





0.0% 





0.0% 


1 


2.6% 






0.0% 


5 


11.1% 





0.0% 


4 


3.9% 


2 


9.5% 



41 


278.5 


329.0 


154 


251.7 


223.0 


63 


254.4 


230.0 


289 


255.3 


200.0 



99 18.1% 14 2.6% 547 255.9 211.0 



11 


186.7 


96.0 


13 


204.2 


169.0 


117 


200.0 


204.0 


38 


181.4 


119.0 



22 12.3% 2 1.1% 179 195.6 169.0 



38 


178.6 


130.5 


45 


330.9 


197.0 


24 


196.5 


160.0 


102 


258.3 


196.5 


21 


303.4 


313.0 



44 19.1% 11 4.8% 230 257.0 192.0 



25 16.2% 9 5.8% 154 253.0 182.5 

30 18.3% 4 2.4% 164 249.4 202.5 

55 17.3% 13 4.1% 318 251.2 197.0 



31 10.3% 9 3.0% 301 200.3 145.0 



958 31.4% 176 5.8% 3,053 330.9 272.0 

119 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 





<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Pending 


Age (Days) 


Age (Day 


District 27A 




















Gaston 


321 


88.2% 


40 


11.0% 


3 


0.8% 


364 


183.2 


138.5 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


130 


62.5% 


53 


25.5% 


25 


12.0% 


208 


344.5 


259.0 


Lincoln 


84 


70.6% 


25 


21.0% 


10 


8.4% 


119 


301.1 


222.0 


District Totals 


214 


65.4% 


78 


23.9% 


35 


10.7% 


327 


328.7 


246.0 


District 28 




















Buncombe 


390 


76.8% 


99 


19.5% 


19 


3.7% 


508 


241.9 


171.0 


District 29 




















Henderson 


160 


53.2% 


93 


30.9% 


48 


15.9% 


301 


415.4 


301.0 


McDowell 


46 


76.7% 


6 


10.0% 


8 


13.3% 


60 


330.6 


201.0 


Polk 


14 


53.8% 


11 


42.3% 


1 


3.8% 


26 


342.6 


350.5 


Rutherford 


76 


80.9% 


15 


16.0% 


3 


3.2% 


94 


233.8 


212.5 


Transylvania 


36 


59.0% 


14 


23.0% 


11 


18.0% 


61 


393.1 


305.0 


District Totals 


332 


61.3% 


139 


25.6% 


71 


13.1% 


542 


368.5 


263.0 


District 30A 




















Cherokee 


28 


54.9% 


14 


27.5% 


9 


17.6% 


51 


430.4 


315.0 


Clay 


8 


80.0% 


2 


20.0% 





0.0% 


10 


179.4 


134.5 


Graham 


16 


72.7% 


3 


13.6% 


3 


13.6% 


22 


378.7 


285.0 


Macon 


39 


50.0% 


16 


20.5% 


23 


29.5% 


78 


546.8 


371.5 


Swain 


10 


32.3% 


12 


38.7% 


9 


29.0% 


31 


582.8 


581.0 


District Totals 


101 


52.6% 


47 


24.5% 


44 


22.9% 


192 


483.3 


319.0 


District 30B 




















Haywood 


84 


57.9% 


49 


33.8% 


12 


8.3% 


145 


343.5 


319.0 


Jackson 


38 


67.9% 


11 


19.6% 


7 


12.5% 


56 


371.9 


274.5 


District Totals 


122 


60.7% 


60 


29.9% 


19 


9.5% 


201 


351.4 


294.0 


State Totals 


13,572 


68.4% 


4,831 


24.3% 


1,453 


7.3% 


19,856 


307.8 


235.0 



120 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 







Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 


1991 -Ji 


jne 30, 1992 










Ages 


of Disposed Cases (Mon 


ths) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 


District 1 

Camden 


<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Age (Days) 


1 


20.0% 


2 


40.0% 


2 


40.0% 


5 


686.0 


678.0 


Chowan 


15 


65.2% 


4 


17.4% 


4 


17.4% 


23 


373.1 


201.0 


Currituck 


25 


33.3% 


18 


24.0% 


32 


42.7% 


75 


600.6 


565.0 


Dare 


93 


63.3% 


35 


23.8% 


19 


12.9% 


147 


354.1 


252.0 


Gates 


9 


52.9% 


3 


17.6% 


5 


29.4% 


17 


495.9 


276.0 


Pasquotank 


42 


61.8% 


13 


19.1% 


13 


19.1% 


68 


374.1 


287.5 


Perquimans 


4 


21.1% 


7 


36.8% 


8 


42.1% 


19 


788.3 


628.0 


District Totals 


189 


53.4% 


82 


23.2% 


83 


23.4% 


354 


446.2 


328.0 


District 2 




















Beaufort 


54 


69.2% 


17 


21.8% 


7 


9.0% 


78 


305.4 


207.0 


Hyde 


10 


55.6% 


5 


27.8% 


3 


16.7% 


18 


454.8 


209.5 


Martin 


17 


41.5% 


18 


43.9% 


6 


14.6% 


41 


522.5 


431.0 


Tyrrell 


4 


100.0% 





0.0% 





0.0% 


4 


155.8 


154.0 


Washington 


19 


55.9% 


8 


23.5% 


7 


20.6% 


34 


421.7 


276.5 


District Totals 


104 


59.4% 


48 


27.4% 


23 


13.1% 


175 


390.8 


260.0 


District 3A 




















Pitt 


228 


72.8% 


77 


24.6% 


8 


2.6% 


313 


257.3 


221.0 


District 3B 




















Carteret 


103 


65.6% 


36 


22.9% 


18 


11.5% 


157 


327.8 


272.0 


Craven 


146 


67.6% 


56 


25.9% 


14 


6.5% 


216 


289.5 


220.5 


Pamlico 


20 


64.5% 


9 


29.0% 


2 


6.5% 


31 


280.8 


212.0 


District Totals 


269 


66.6% 


101 


25.0% 


34 


8.4% 


404 


303.7 


230.0 


District 4A 




















Duplin 


53 


60.9% 


26 


29.9% 


8 


9.2% 


87 


330.3 


242.0 


Jones 


11 


50.0% 


8 


36.4% 


3 


13.6% 


22 


462.3 


332.0 


Sampson 


55 


67.1% 


25 


30.5% 


2 


2.4% 


82 


276.9 


280.0 


District Totals 


119 


62.3% 


59 


30.9% 


13 


6.8% 


191 


322.6 


273.0 


District 4B 




















Onslow 


137 


52.9% 


82 


31.7% 


40 


15.4% 


259 


401.8 


348.0 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


271 


48.0% 


189 


33.5% 


105 


18.6% 


565 


429.7 


400.0 


Pender 


25 


39.7% 


19 


30.2% 


19 


30.2% 


63 


521.1 


575.0 


District Totals 


296 


47.1% 


208 


33.1% 


124 


19.7% 


628 


438.9 


410.0 


District 6A 




















Halifax 


92 


63.9% 


36 


25.0% 


16 


11.1% 


144 


350.4 


262.0 



121 



AGES 



OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) Total Mean 

Disposed Age (Days) 



:12 



% 



12-24 



% 



>24 



% 



District 6B 






Bertie 


3b 


73.5% 


Hertford 


22 


59.5% 


Northampton 


31 


63.3% 


District Totals 


89 


65.9% 


District 7A 






Nash 


149 


73.0% 


District 7B-C 






Edgecombe 


73 


64.0% 


Wilson 


133 


71.9% 


District Totals 


206 


68.9% 


District 8A 






Greene 


15 


62.5% 


Lenoir 


159 


71.9% 


District Totals 


174 


71.0% 


District 8B 






Wayne 


138 


60.5% 


District 9 






Franklin 


33 


47.1% 


Granville 


33 


51.6% 


Person 


26 


45.6% 


Vance 


38 


43.2% 


Warren 


13 


46.4% 


District Totals 


143 


46.6% 


District 10A-D 






Wake 


916 


54.4% 


District 11 






Harnett 


')2 


64.8% 


Johnston 


159 


62.4% 


Lee 


48 


53.9% 


District Totals 


299 


61.5% 


District 12A-C 






Cumberland 


355 


64.2% 


District 13 






Bladen 


29 


43.9% 


Brunswick 


66 


47.8% 


Columbus 


55 


45.8% 


District Totals 


150 


46.3% 



12 


24.5% 


6 


16.2% 


15 


30.6% 



33 



47 



31 

41 

72 



4 

44 

48 



55 



110 



483 



117 



186 



24.4% 



23.0% 



27.2% 
22.2% 

24.1% 



16.7% 
19.9% 

19.6% 



24.1% 



32 


45.7% 


22 


34.4% 


25 


43.9% 


23 


26.1% 


8 


28.6% 



35.8% 



28.7% 



35 


24.6% 


52 


20.4% 


30 


33.7% 



24.1% 



33.6% 



1 


2.0% 


9 


24.3% 


3 


6.1% 



13 



10 
11 

21 



23 



35 



54 



284 



70 



12 



9.6% 



3.9% 



8.8% 
5.9% 

7.0% 



5 20.8% 

18 8.1% 



9.4% 



15.4% 



5 


7.1% 


9 


14.1% 


6 


10.5% 


27 


30.7% 


7 


25.0% 



17.6% 



16.9% 



15 


10.6% 


44 


17.3% 


11 


12.4% 



14.4% 



2.2% 



27 


40.9% 




10 


15.2% 


48 


34.8% 




24 


17.4% 


31 


25.8% 




34 


28.3% 


06 


32.7% 


122 


68 


21.0% 



49 
37 
49 

135 



204 



114 
185 

299 



24 
221 

245 



228 



307 



1,683 



486 



553 



324 



271.5 
435.5 
297.7 

325.9 



263.3 



313.5 
302.1 

306.4 



346.7 
276.4 

283.3 



371.4 



439.5 



397.0 



360.0 



280.4 



453.9 



Median 

Age (Days) 

223.0 
319.0 
262.0 

246.0 



185.0 



242.5 
236.0 

236.0 



187.0 
189.0 

189.0 



293.5 



70 


399.5 


410.5 


64 


404.7 


353.5 


57 


423.5 


419.0 


88 


507.1 


466.5 


28 


439.4 


380.5 



407.0 



312.0 



142 


312.8 


238.0 


255 


379.5 


291.0 


89 


379.4 


334.0 



286.0 



276.0 



66 


450.1 


445.0 


138 


436.6 


406.0 


120 


475.9 


409.0 



412.0 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) Total Mean Median 

Disposed Age (Days) Age (Days) 

630 320.3 232.5 

231 321.9 289.0 



72 290.3 273.5 

314 270.7 236.5 

386 274.3 244.0 





<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


District 14A-B 














Durham 


403 


64.0% 


161 


25.6% 


66 


10.5% 


District ISA 














Alamance 


145 


62.8% 


71 


30.7% 


15 


6.5% 


District 15B 














Chatham 


40 


68.1% 


22 


30.6% 


1 


1.4% 


Orange 


213 


67.8% 


97 


30.9% 


4 


1.3% 


District Totals 


262 


67.9% 


119 


30.8% 


5 


1.3% 


District 16A 














Hoke 


8 


47.1% 


9 


52.9% 





0.0% 


Scotland 


44 


61.1% 


20 


27.8% 


8 


11.1% 


District Totals 


52 


58.4% 


29 


32.6% 


8 


9.0% 


District 16B 














Robeson 


238 


67.6% 


94 


26.7% 


20 


5.7% 


District 17A 














Caswell 


18 


72.0% 


6 


24.0% 


1 


4.0% 


Rockingham 


120 


69.0% 


51 


29.3% 


3 


1.7% 


District Totals 


138 


69.3% 


57 


28.6% 


4 


2.0% 


District 17B 














Stokes 


25 


73.5% 


9 


26.5% 





0.0% 


Surry 


103 


58.5% 


70 


39.8% 


3 


1.7% 


District Totals 


128 


61.0% 


79 


37.6% 


3 


1.4% 


District 18A-E 














Guilford 


746 


61.0% 


427 


34.9% 


50 


4.1% 


District 19A 














Cabarrus 


139 


80.8% 


29 


16.9% 


4 


2.3% 


District 19B 














Montgomery 


38 


73.1% 


9 


17.3% 


5 


9.6% 


Randolph 


107 


60.1% 


61 


34.3% 


10 


5.6% 


District Totals 


145 


63.0% 


70 


30.4% 


15 


6.5% 


District 19C 














Rowan 


119 


68.4% 


53 


30.5% 


2 


1.1% 


District 20A 














Anson 


32 


56.1% 


23 


40.4% 


2 


3.5% 


Moore 


82 


58.6% 


46 


32.9% 


12 


8.6% 


Richmond 


64 


61.0% 


32 


30.5% 


9 


8.6% 


District Totals 


178 


58.9% 


101 


33.4% 


23 


7.6% 



17 351.6 400.0 
72 342.7 249.5 

89 344.4 292.0 



352 298.6 275.5 

25 244.0 185.0 

174 271.7 279.0 

199 268.3 264.0 



34 257.9 290.5 
176 292.5 305.0 

210 286.9 294.5 



1,223 305.4 264.0 



172 248.0 229.0 



52 282.2 209.5 
178 320.2 319.0 

230 311.6 273.0 



174 289.3 294.0 



57 346.0 348.0 

140 338.0 291.5 

105 318.1 271.0 

302 332.6 301.0 



123 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) Total Mean Median 

<12 % 12-24 % >24 % Disposed Age (Days) Age (Days) 



48 51.1% 4 4.3% 94 395.1 400.0 

62 37.8% 12 7.3% 164 353.9 308.5 

110 42.6% 16 6.2% 258 368.9 363.0 



224 22.5% 16 1.6% 995 256.4 229.0 



District 20B 






Stanly 


42 


44.7% 


Union 


00 


54.9% 


District Totals 


132 


51.2% 


District 21A-D 






Forsyth 


755 


75.9% 


District 22 






Alexander 


31 


63.3% 


Davidson 


118 


68.6% 


Davie 


31 


56.4% 


Iredell 


212 


73.1% 


District Totals 


392 


69.3% 


District 23 






Alleghany 


16 


61.5% 


Ashe 


12 


50.0% 


Wilkes 


120 


75.5% 


Yadkin 


29 


80.6% 


District Totals 


177 


72.2% 


District 24 






Avery 


21 


67.7% 


Madison 


13 


43.3% 


Mitchell 


20 


64.5% 


Watauga 


64 


62.7% 


Yancey 


21 


70.0% 


District Totals 


139 


62.1% 


District 25A 






Burke 


122 


63.5% 


Caldwell 


100 


56.2% 


District Totals 


222 


60.0% 


District 25B 






Catawba 


309 


57.3% 



17 


34.7% 


50 


29.1% 


20 


36.4% 


75 


25.9% 



1 


2.0% 


4 


2.3% 


4 


7.3% 


3 


1.0% 



49 


301.7 


191.0 


172 


281.7 


270.0 


55 


349.4 


300.0 


290 


246.8 


217.5 



162 28.6% 12 2.1% 566 272.1 244.5 



10 


38.5% 


11 


45.8% 


37 


23.3% 


5 


13.9% 






0.0% 


1 


4.2% 


2 


1.3% 


2 


5.6% 



26 


292.8 


249.0 


24 


336.8 


351.0 


159 


264.1 


259.0 


36 


265.3 


233.0 



63 25.7% 5 2.0% 245 274.4 259.0 



9 


29.0% 


17 


56.7% 


7 


22.6% 


30 


29.4% 


8 


26.7% 



1 


3.2% 





0.0% 


4 


12.9% 


8 


7.8% 


1 


3.3% 



31 


304.3 


298.0 


30 


414.0 


392.5 


31 


370.7 


290.0 


102 


308.2 


240.5 


30 


261.8 


199.0 



71 31.7% 14 6.3% 224 324.3 289.0 



59 30.7% 11 5.7% 192 321.8 290.0 

62 34.8% 16 9.0% 178 360.5 326.0 

121 32.7% 27 7.3% 370 340.4 308.5 



188 34.9% 42 7.8% 539 352.6 323.0 

District 26A-C 
Mecklenburg 1,801 58.2% 924 29.9% 368 11.9% 3,093 377.5 287.0 

District 27A 
Gaston 464 79.2% 109 18.6% 13 2.2% 586 242.2 183.0 



124 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 





/ 


^.ges of Cas 


es Dispose 


?djuly 1, 19 


91- 


June 30, 1992 










Ages 


of Disposed 


Cases (Months) 






Total 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Disposed 


Age (Days) 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


78 


51.3% 


63 


41.4% 


11 


7.2% 


152 


334.0 


339.0 


Lincoln 


48 


52.7% 


37 


40.7% 


6 


6.6% 


91 


347.6 


342.0 


District Totals 


126 


51.9% 


100 


41.2% 


17 


7.0% 


243 


339.1 


341.0 


District 28 




















Buncombe 


354 


65.1% 


155 


28.5% 


35 


6.4% 


544 


316.7 


259.0 


District 29 




















Henderson 


88 


59.1% 


24 


16.1% 


37 


24.8% 


149 


435.0 


299.0 


McDowell 


37 


51.4% 


27 


37.5% 


8 


11.1% 


72 


393.9 


343.0 


Polk 


13 


46.4% 


15 


53.6% 





0.0% 


28 


331.9 


404.0 


Rutherford 


54 


59.3% 


24 


26.4% 


13 


14.3% 


91 


354.4 


267.0 


Transylvania 


32 


49.2% 


20 


30.8% 


13 


20.0% 


65 


467.3 


380.0 


District Totals 


224 


55.3% 


110 


27.2% 


71 


17.5% 


405 


407.6 


304.0 


District 30A 




















Cherokee 


14 


56.0% 


9 


36.0% 


2 


8.0% 


25 


360.1 


356.0 


Clay 


3 


50.0% 


1 


16.7% 


2 


33.3% 


6 


376.5 


351.0 


Graham 


9 


69.2% 


2 


15.4% 


2 


15.4% 


13 


322.0 


286.0 


Macon 


25 


50.0% 


16 


32.0% 


9 


18.0% 


50 


394.3 


335.5 


Swain 


5 


33.3% 


5 


33.3% 


5 


33.3% 


15 


526.8 


440.0 


District Totals 


56 


51.4% 


33 


30.3% 


20 


18.3% 


109 


395.1 


360.0 


District 30B 




















Haywood 


52 


61.2% 


27 


31.8% 


6 


7.1% 


85 


312.8 


281.0 


Jackson 


39 


61.9% 


16 


25.4% 


8 


12.7% 


63 


367.2 


254.0 


District Totals 


91 


61.5% 


43 


29.1% 


14 


9.5% 


148 


335.9 


280.5 


State Totals 


11,988 


61.6% 


5,653 


29.1% 


1,814 


9.3% 


19,455 


339.1 


276.0 



125 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN ESTATES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 



1982-83 - 1991-92 



ESTATE CASES 





• — 


. xr^=*= 


Filings 

— — -• — " 

rnr^— -•— - — 

Dispositions 


• • a 9 


__i • *— ~~ 


• — ~~~ 




— •— — 



60,000 



40,000 



Number 

of 

Cases 



20,000 



82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-S 



89-90 90-91 91-92 



SPECIAL PROCEEDING CASES 




60,000 



40,000 



Number 

of 

Cases 



20,000 



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



5-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 



Estate filings increased by 1.9%, after two years of and judicial hospitalizations. Special proceeding filings 
decline. Estate dispositions increased by 2.3%. Special increased by 3.9% over last year, while dispositions fell 
proceedings include, among other things, foreclosures by 1.3%. 



126 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 

Estates Special Proceedings 



Mstrict 1 

Camden 


Filed 


Disposed 


48 


33 


Chowan 


148 


144 


Currituck 


151 


125 


Dare 


199 


195 


Gates 


98 


74 


Pasquotank 


235 


277 


Perquimans 


123 


134 



Filed 


Disposed 


21 


23 


95 


69 


130 


7S 


259 


225 


59 


15 


244 


109 


40 


23 



District Totals 1,002 



982 



848 



539 



District 2 






Beaufort 


394 


434 


Hyde 


74 


7? 


Martin 


216 


187 


Tyrrell 


39 


34 


Washington 


102 


119 



241 


241 


29 


36 


135 


104 


14 


8 


65 


46 



District Totals 825 



847 



484 



435 



District 3A 






Pitt 


737 


749 


District 3B 






Carteret 


547 


489 


Craven 


498 


445 


Pamlico 


80 


84 



564 



278 



421 


248 


548 


396 


40 


60 



District Totals 1,125 



1,018 



1,009 



704 



District 4A 

Duplin 381 

Jones 80 

Sampson 458 



411 

66 
441 



301 


175 


61 


38 


292 


208 



District Totals 919 



918 



654 



421 



District 4B 






Onslow 


426 


436 


District 5 






New Hanover 


898 


883 


Pender 


214 


197 



1,376 



1,401 
195 



876 



1,441 
193 



District Totals 1,112 



1,080 



1,596 



1,634 



District 6A 

Halifax 



560 



737 



315 



237 



27 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Estates Special Proceedings 





Filed 


Disposed 


District 6B 






Bertie 


141 


119 


Hertford 


176 


139 


Northampton 


213 


187 


District Totals 


530 


445 


District 7A 






Nash 


671 


667 


District 7B-C 






Edgecombe 


476 


358 


Wilson 


586 


603 



Filed 


Disposed 


147 


51 


112 


100 


100 


49 



359 



635 



315 

477 



200 



165 



109 

373 



District Totals 1,062 



961 



792 



482 



District 8A 






Greene 


138 


114 


Lenoir 


482 


506 


District Totals 


620 


620 


District 8B 






Wayne 


645 


638 


District 9 






Franklin 


265 


221 


Granville 


289 


264 


Person 


236 


244 


Vance 


307 


332 


Warren 


197 


146 


District Totals 


1,294 


1,207 


District 10A-D 






Wake 


1,989 


1,611 


District 11 






Harnett 


446 


455 


Johnston 


646 


662 


Lee 


336 


300 



56 

322 

378 



891 



1,238 



4,035 



41 

325 

366 



932 



197 


124 


439 


427 


199 


166 


291 


184 


112 


83 



984 



3,764 



595 


358 


727 


661 


241 


157 



District Totals 1,428 



1,417 



1,563 



1,176 



District 12A-C 

Cumberland 1,114 



1,134 



2,570 



2,506 



128 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Estates Special Proceedings 





Filed 


Disposed 


Mstrict 13 






Bladen 


207 


200 


Brunswick 


484 


467 


Columbus 


455 


398 



Filed 


Disposed 


257 


85 


486 


480 


322 


279 



District Totals 1,146 



1,065 



1,065 



844 



District 14A-B 






Durham 


1,301 


1,280 


District 15A 






Alamance 


808 


845 


District 15B 






Chatham 


335 


322 


Orange 


536 


538 


District Totals 


871 


860 


District 16A 






Hoke 


93 


89 


Scotland 


255 


244 



2,149 



814 



176 

745 

921 



105 
361 



1,930 

693 

149 
189 

338 



84 
324 



District Totals 348 



333 



466 



408 



District 16B 






Robeson 


660 


636 


District 17A 






Caswell 


170 


185 


Rockingham 


700 


678 



882 



163 
510 



963 



157 
478 



District Totals 870 



863 



673 



635 



District 17B 






Stokes 


315 


239 


Surry 


396 


420 



153 
370 



46 
288 



District Totals 711 



659 



523 



334 



District 18A-E 

Guilford 2,347 



2,618 



3,121 



1,540 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 



757 



753 



553 



415 



District 19B 

Montgomery 205 

Randolph 781 

District Totals 986 



200 
712 

912 



148 
545 

693 



07 
532 

629 



129 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 

Estates Special Proceedings 





Filed 


Disposed 


District 19C 






Rowan 


1,036 


983 


District 20A 






Anson 


146 


107 


Moore 


605 


625 


Richmond 


319 


232 



Filed 


Disposed 


761 


710 


133 


61 


412 


484 


382 


170 



District Totals 1,070 



964 



927 



715 



District 20B 






Stanly 


316 


338 


Union 


506 


454 



315 
418 



242 
283 



District Totals 822 



792 



733 



525 



)istrict21A-D 






Forsyth 


1,943 


1,943 


Mstrict 22 






Alexander 


186 


186 


Davidson 


935 


786 


Davie 


215 


219 


Iredell 


806 


766 



2,720 



2,612 



89 


71 


981 


848 


90 


56 


503 


361 



District Totals 2,142 



1,957 



1,663 



1,336 



District 23 






Alleghany 


112 


63 


Ashe 


202 


218 


Wilkes 


356 


349 


Yadkin 


296 


275 


District Totals 


966 


905 


District 24 






Avery 


104 


100 


Madison 


173 


136 


Mitchell 


131 


120 


Watauga 


216 


209 


Yancey 


204 


161 


District Totals 


828 


726 


District 25A 






Burke 


508 


577 


Caldwell 


510 


583 



52 


39 


151 


162 


384 


362 


124 


92 



711 



604 



560 

470 



655 



181 


89 


61 


43 


52 


52 


263 


228 


47 


51 



463 



364 
380 



District Totals 1,018 



1,160 



1,030 



744 



130 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Estates Special Proceedings 

Filed Disposed 

638 320 

5,133 4,767 

1,074 1,042 

497 393 

220 225 

District Totals 990 1,044 717 618 





Filed 


Disposed 


District 25B 






Catawba 


795 


1,157 


District 26A-C 






Mecklenburg 


2,917 


2,969 


District 27A 






Gaston 


1,225 


1,192 


District 27B 






Cleveland 


632 


655 


Lincoln 


358 


389 



Mstrict 28 






Buncombe 


1,712 


1,764 


Mstrict 29 






Henderson 


769 


763 


McDowell 


305 


344 


Polk 


211 


237 


Rutherford 


483 


452 


Transylvania 


269 


210 



District 30A 






Cherokee 


215 


161 


Clay 


52 


48 


Graham 


40 


39 


Macon 


228 


205 


Swain 


63 


67 


District Totals 


598 


520 


District 30B 






Haywood 


442 


359 


Jackson 


229 


255 


District Totals 


671 


614 


State Totals 


47,634 


46,987 



1,358 1,340 



638 


619 


280 


170 


73 


67 


320 


234 


143 


114 



District Totals 2,037 2,006 1,454 1,204 



167 


62 


58 


54 


41 


22 


235 


198 


53 


47 



554 383 



239 


219 


151 


127 


390 


346 


51,634 


42,208 



131 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1982-83 -- 1991-92 




Dispositions 



End Pending 



150,000 



120,000 



90,000 



Number 

of 
Cases 



60,000 



30,000 



82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 



-87 87-5 



5-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 



Criminal filings in the superior courts continued to grow 
in fiscal year 1991-92 (10.1% over the previous year), as 
did dispositions (8.8%). There were 126,673 criminal 
cases filed and 119.256 disposed in the superior courts 



during 1991-92. The difference in these figures accounts 
for the 15.6% increase in the number of cases pending on 
June 30, 1992, as compared to the beginning of the fiscal 
year. 



132 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS -- BY TYPE OF CASE 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



FELONIES 


Filed 


% of Total Filings 


Dispositions 


% of Total Dispositions 


Murder 


929 


1.1% 


768 


1.0% 


Manslaughter 


206 


0.2% 


136 


0.2% 


First Degree Rape 


1,814 


2.1% 


1,663 


2.1% 


Other Sex Offenses 


2,382 


2.8% 


2,099 


2.6% 


Robbery 


3,989 


4.7% 


3,546 


4.5% 


Assault 


3,548 


4.1% 


3,185 


4.0% 


Burglary/Breaking or Entering 


17,421 


20.3% 


16,430 


20.6% 


Larceny 


8,156 


9.5% 


8,038 


10.1% 


Arson & Burnings 


458 


0.5% 


435 


0.5% 


Forgery & Utlerings 


8,462 


9.9% 


8,283 


10.4% 


Fraudulent Activity 


6,663 


7.8% 


6,072 


7.6% 


Controlled Substances 


26,855 


31.3% 


24,099 


30.2% 


Other* 


4,865 


5.7% 


4,926 


6.2% 


Totals 


85,748 


100.0% 


79,680 


100.0% 


MISDEMEANORS 










DWI Appeal 


6,391 


15.6% 


6,150 


15.5% 


Other Motor Vehicle Appeal 


6,650 


16.2% 


6,371 


16.1% 


Non-Motor Vehicle Appeal 


18,921 


46.2% 


19,140 


48.4% 


Misdemeanor Originating in Superior Court 


8,963 


21.9% 


7,915 


20.0% 


Totals 


40,925 


100.0% 


39,576 


100.0% 



Felony filings increased from 73,908 in fiscal year 1990-91 to 85,748 in 1991-92, an increase of 16.0%. Misdemeanor 
filings in superior court decreased by 0.6% from 41,191 to 40,925. Among the case categories with the largest 
percentage increases were manslaughter (106.0%), robbery (28.1%), fraudulent activity (23.9%), and murder (17.6%). 
In addition, felony controlled substance filings increased by 22.7%, from 21,888 to 26,855, and now constitute 31.3% 
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. 



133 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



Begin End Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



District 1 


























Camden 


4 


2b 


30 


20 


66.7% 


10 


15 


51 


66 


33 


50.0% 


33 


Chowan 


185 


156 


341 


105 


30.8% 


236 


98 


96 


194 


96 


49.5% 


98 


Currituck 


100 


142 


242 


193 


79.8% 


49 


70 


85 


155 


122 


78.7% 


33 


Dare 


184 


319 


503 


360 


71.6% 


143 


174 


326 


500 


379 


75.8% 


121 


Gates 


26 


115 


141 


58 


41.1% 


83 


26 


58 


84 


63 


75.0% 


21 


Pasquotank 


250 


397 


647 


406 


62.8% 


241 


168 


302 


470 


281 


59.8% 


189 


Perquimans 


36 


84 


120 


88 


73.3% 


32 


53 


112 


165 


116 


70.3% 


49 



District Totals 785 1,239 2,024 1,230 



60.8% 



794 



604 1,030 1,634 



1,090 



66.7% 



544 



District 2 


























Beaufort 


185 


565 


750 


525 


70.0% 


225 


141 


456 


597 


492 


82.4% 


105 


Hyde 


15 


68 


83 


50 


60.2% 


33 


10 


40 


50 


35 


70.0% 


15 


Martin 


103 


397 


500 


382 


76.4% 


118 


68 


205 


273 


214 


78.4% 


59 


Tyrrell 


13 


46 


59 


46 


78.0% 


13 


30 


59 


89 


69 


77.5% 


20 


Washington 


95 


217 


312 


252 


80.8% 


60 


52 


127 


179 


145 


81.0% 


34 


District Totals 


411 


1,293 


1,704 


1,255 


73.7% 


449 


301 


887 


1,188 


955 


80.4% 


233 



District 3A 

Pitt 



1,050 2,112 3,162 2,113 



66.8% 



1,049 



508 1,762 2,270 



1,928 



84.9% 



342 



District 3B 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 



145 658 803 581 72.4% 222 64 372 436 320 73.4% 116 

283 1,135 1,418 1,068 75.3% 350 74 467 541 420 77.6% 121 

45 237 282 126 44.7% 156 14 55 69 32 46.4% 37 



District Totals 473 2,030 2,503 1,775 



70.9% 



728 



152 



894 1,046 



772 



73.8% 



274 



District 4A 

Duplin 

Jones 

Sampson 



92 

14 

107 



639 
233 

557 



731 
247 
664 



651 

63 

610 



89.1% 
25.5% 
91.9% 



80 
184 

54 



15 

3 

28 



108 

39 
148 



123 

42 
176 



102 

30 

157 



82.9% 
71.4% 
89.2% 



21 
12 
19 



District Totals 



213 1,429 1,642 1,324 



80.6% 



318 



46 



295 



341 



289 



84.8% 



52 



District 4B 
Onslow 

District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 



459 1,810 2,269 



624 2,924 3,548 
81 321 402 



District Totals 705 3,245 3,950 



1,564 


68.9% 


705 


98 


481 


579 


389 


67.2% 


190 


2,290 


64.5% 


1,258 


587 


1,527 


2,114 


1,326 


62.7% 


788 


275 


68.4% 


127 


30 


179 


209 


122 


58.4% 


87 


2,565 


64.9% 


1,385 
134 


617 


1,706 


2,323 


1,448 


62.3% 


875 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



Begin End Begin Knd 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



District 6A 


























Halifax 


393 


1,153 


1,546 


888 


57.4% 


658 


171 


455 


626 


398 


63.6% 


228 


District 6B 


























Bertie 


21 


350 


371 


269 


72.5% 


102 


32 


104 


136 


80 


58.8% 


56 


Hertford 


76 


493 


569 


464 


81.5% 


105 


53 


210 


263 


157 


59.7% 


106 


Northampton 


73 


209 


282 


203 


72.0% 


79 


32 


127 


159 


95 


59.7% 


64 


District Totals 


170 


1,052 


1,222 


936 


76.6% 


286 


117 


441 


558 


332 


59.5% 


226 


District 7A 


























Nash 


380 


1,270 


1,650 


1,299 


78.7% 


351 


107 


419 


526 


362 


68.8% 


164 


District 7B-C 


























Edgecombe 


252 


1,188 


1,440 


963 


66.9% 


477 


194 


308 


502 


244 


48.6% 


258 


Wilson 


352 


1,132 


1,484 


955 


64.4% 


529 


134 


432 


566 


293 


51.8% 


273 


District Totals 


604 


2,320 


2,924 


1,918 


65.6% 


1,006 


328 


740 


1,068 


537 


50.3% 


531 


District 8A 


























Greene 


40 


171 


211 


150 


71.1% 


61 


30 


107 


137 


101 


73.7% 


36 


Lenoir 


190 


741 


931 


776 


83.4% 


155 


235 


679 


914 


725 


79.3% 


189 


District Totals 


230 


912 


1,142 


926 


81.1% 


216 


265 


786 


1,051 


826 


78.6% 


225 



District 8B 

Wayne 



296 1,149 1,445 



936 



64.8% 



509 



348 1,033 1,381 



1,023 



74.1% 



358 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



160 


527 


687 


443 


64.5% 


244 


116 


396 


512 


341 


66.6% 


171 


225 


424 


649 


556 


85.7% 


93 


142 


367 


509 


373 


73.3% 


136 


237 


406 


643 


550 


85.5% 


93 


169 


337 


506 


409 


80.8% 


97 


401 


879 


1,280 


821 


64.1% 


459 


265 


704 


969 


566 


58.4% 


403 


93 


345 


438 


288 


65.8% 


150 


98 


177 


275 


169 


61.5% 


106 



District Totals 1,116 2,581 3,697 2,658 



71.9% 



1,039 



790 1,981 2,771 



1,858 



67.1% 



913 



District 10A-D 

Wake 2,103 5,434 7,537 5,004 66.4% 2,533 



497 2,581 3,078 



2,538 



82.5% 



540 



135 



District 11 

Harnett 
Johnston 

Lee 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



Begin End Begin Knd 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



164 


684 


848 


572 


67.5% 


276 


36 


222 


258 


185 


71.7% 


73 


172 


878 


1,050 


757 


72.1% 


293 


109 


345 


454 


362 


79.7% 


92 


136 


654 


790 


591 


74.8% 


199 


62 


349 


411 


358 


87.1% 


53 


472 


2,216 


2,688 


1,920 


71.4% 


768 


207 


916 


1,123 


905 


80.6% 


218 



District 12A-C 

Cumberland 1,137 3,248 4,385 



2,558 



58.3% 



1,827 



188 



578 766 



520 



67.9% 



246 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 



254 


430 


684 


387 


56.6% 


297 


75 


173 


248 


185 


74.6% 


63 


269 


448 


717 


503 


70.2% 


214 


63 


154 


217 


165 


76.0% 


52 


97 


370 


467 


261 


55.9% 


206 


70 


158 


228 


162 


71.1% 


66 



District Totals 620 1,248 1,868 



1,151 



61.6% 



717 



208 



485 693 



512 



73.9% 



181 



District 14A-B 


























Durham 


2,406 


2,338 


4,744 


3,056 


64.4% 


1,688 


210 


602 


812 


614 


75.6% 


198 


District 15A 


























Alamance 


812 


3,141 


3,953 


3,114 


78.8% 


839 


253 


921 


1,174 


1,019 


86.8% 


155 


District 15B 


























Chatham 


226 


317 


543 


393 


72.4% 


150 


40 


85 


125 


96 


76.8% 


29 


Orange 


259 


802 


1,061 


721 


68.0% 


340 


41 


135 


176 


145 


82.4% 


31 


District Totals 


485 


1,119 


1,604 


1,114 


69.5% 


490 


81 


220 


301 


241 


80.1% 


60 


District 16A 


























Hoke 


173 


414 


587 


354 


60.3% 


233 


60 


149 


209 


121 


57.9% 


88 


Scotland 

nUtrir.t Tntak 


276 

449 


656 

1.070 


932 
1.519 


662 
1.016 


71.0% 
66.9% 


270 
503 


50 
110 


179 

328 


229 
438 


160 
281 


69.9% 

64.2% 


69 

157 



District 16B 
Robeson 



900 2,897 3,797 1,826 



48.1% 



1,971 



597 952 1,549 



711 



45.9% 



838 



District 17A 
Caswell 
Rockingham 



33 184 217 166 76.5% 51 

660 1,556 2,216 1,473 66.5% 743 



District Totals 693 1,740 2,433 1,639 67.4% 



794 



44 


242 


286 


247 


86.4% 


39 


371 


931 


1,302 


859 


66.0% 


443 



415 1,173 1,588 1,106 69.6% 



482 



136 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1991 --June 30, 1992 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



Begin End Begin Knd 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



Mstrict 17B 


























Stokes 


243 


472 


715 


508 


71.0% 


207 


94 


323 


417 


319 


76.5% 


98 


Surry 


155 


722 


877 


705 


80.4% 


172 


137 


610 


747 


610 


81.7% 


137 


District Totals 


398 


1,194 


1,592 


1,213 


76.2% 


379 


231 


933 


1,164 


929 


79.8% 


235 



District 18A-E 

Guilford 2,369 5,937 8,306 6,008 72.3% 2,298 



383 820 1,203 



921 



76.6% 



282 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 



596 1,379 1,975 1,155 



58.5% 



820 



377 939 1,316 



890 



67.6% 



426 



District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 



152 311 463 271 

323 1,087 1,410 779 



District Totals 475 1,398 1,873 1,050 



58.5% 


192 


99 


217 


316 


217 


68.7% 


99 


55.2% 


631 


217 


508 


725 


475 


65.5% 


250 


56.1% 


823 


316 


725 


1,041 


692 


66.5% 


349 



District 19C 

Rowan 



669 1,353 2,022 1,240 



61.3% 



782 



156 451 



607 



376 



61.9% 



231 



District 20A 
Anson 
Moore 
Richmond 



39 473 512 311 

344 1,009 1,353 1,084 

245 1,073 1,318 940 



60.7% 


201 


57 


293 


350 


270 


77.1% 


80 


80.1% 


269 


138 


523 


661 


505 


76.4% 


156 


71.3% 


378 


179 


597 


776 


567 


73.1% 


209 



District Totals 628 2,555 3,183 2,335 



73.4% 



848 



374 1,413 1,787 



1,342 



75.1% 



445 



District 20B 


























Stanly 


193 


379 


572 


427 


74.7% 


145 


208 


435 


643 


541 


84.1% 


102 


Union 


390 


953 


1,343 


1,089 


81.1% 


254 


288 


681 


969 


768 


79.3% 


201 



District Totals 583 1,332 1,915 1,516 



79.2% 



399 



496 1,116 1,612 



1,309 



81.2% 



303 



District 21 A-D 

Forsyth 



667 2,674 3,341 2,599 



11.1 



742 



226 1,380 1,606 



1,383 



86.1% 



223 



District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 



86 153 239 153 

229 858 1,087 649 

31 121 152 100 

527 976 1,503 1,081 



64.0% 


86 


68 


242 


310 


181 


58.4% 


129 


59.7% 


438 


137 


467 


604 


465 


77.0% 


139 


65.8% 


52 


41 


146 


187 


152 


81.3% 


35 


71.9% 


422 


302 


849 


1,151 


839 


72.9% 


312 



District Totals 873 2,108 2,981 1,983 



66.5% 



998 



548 1,704 2,252 



1,637 



72.7% 



615 



137 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



Begin End Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



District 23 


























Alleghany 


24 


44 


68 


28 


41.2% 


40 


24 


49 


73 


44 


60.3% 


29 


Ashe 


27 


114 


141 


70 


49.6% 


71 


37 


86 


123 


65 


52.8% 


58 


Wilkes 


178 


413 


591 


443 


75.0% 


148 


142 


328 


470 


375 


79.8% 


95 


Yadkin 


42 


141 


183 


115 


62.8% 


68 


52 


120 


172 


117 


68.0% 


55 


District Totals 


271 


712 


983 


656 


66.7% 


327 


255 


583 


838 


601 


71.7% 


237 


District 24 


























Avery 


65 


SO 


145 


72 


49.7% 


73 


33 


57 


90 


62 


68.9% 


28 


Madison 


69 


60 


129 


92 


71.3% 


37 


12 


39 


51 


33 


64.7% 


18 


Mitchell 


68 


68 


136 


93 


68.4% 


43 


21 


28 


49 


26 


53.1% 


23 


Watauga 


177 


206 


383 


213 


55.6% 


170 


106 


213 


319 


169 


53.0% 


150 


Yancey 


26 


45 


71 


30 


42.3% 


41 


12 


19 


31 


13 


41.9% 


18 



District Totals 405 



459 



864 



500 



57.9% 



364 



184 



356 



540 



303 



56.1% 



237 



District 25A 


























Burke 


392 


645 


1,037 


571 


55.1% 


466 


471 


750 


1,221 


745 


61.0% 


476 


Caldwell 


523 


1,017 


1,540 


939 


61.0% 


601 


454 


669 


1,123 


903 


804% 


220 



District Totals 915 1,662 2,577 1,510 58.6% 1,067 925 1,419 2,344 1,648 70.3% 



696 



District 25B 

Catawba 



705 1,334 2,039 1,133 55.6% 



906 



449 1,021 1,470 931 63.3% 539 



District 26A-C 
Mecklenburg 1,360 4,316 5,676 3,724 65.6% 1,952 



987 2,063 3,050 1,632 53.5% 1,418 



District 27A 
Gaston 



1,017 2,607 3,624 2,471 



68.2% 



1,153 



299 762 1,061 



682 64.3% 379 



District 27B 

Cleveland 464 828 1,292 808 62.5% 484 98 250 348 183 52.6% 165 

Lincoln 432 581 1,013 615 60.7% 398 112 174 286 187 65.4% 99 

District Totals 896 1,409 2,305 1,423 61.7% 882 210 424 634 370 58.4% 264 



District 28 

Buncombe 



1,015 1,814 2,829 2,341 



82.8% 



488 



264 783 1,047 



920 



87.9% 



127 



138 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



Begin End Begin Knd 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



District 29 


























Henderson 


330 


803 


1,133 


747 


65.9% 


386 


196 


332 


528 


339 


64.2% 


189 


McDowell 


165 


302 


467 


270 


57.8% 


197 


147 


265 


412 


242 


58.7% 


170 


Polk 


111 


63 


174 


70 


40.2% 


104 


45 


70 


115 


57 


49.6% 


58 


Rutherford 


353 


644 


997 


588 


59.0% 


409 


427 


809 


1,236 


824 


66.7% 


412 


Transylvania 


127 


284 


411 


219 


53.3% 


192 


45 


81 


126 


77 


61.1% 


40 


District Totals 


1,086 


2,096 


3,182 


1,894 


59.5% 


1,288 


860 


1,557 


2,417 


1,539 


63.7% 


878 


District 30A 


























Cherokee 


59 


237 


296 


204 


68.9% 


92 


38 


172 


210 


177 


84.3% 


33 


Clay 


31 


82 


113 


96 


85.0% 


17 


8 


37 


45 


27 


60.0% 


18 


Graham 


14 


241 


255 


124 


48.6% 


131 


19 


81 


100 


74 


74.0% 


26 


Macon 


41 


164 


205 


127 


62.0% 


78 


34 


76 


110 


86 


78.2% 


24 


Swain 


36 


109 


145 


128 


88.3% 


17 


18 


50 


68 


58 


85.3% 


10 


District Totals 


181 


833 


1,014 


679 


67.0% 


335 


117 


416 


533 


422 


79.2% 


111 


District 30B 


























Haywood 


85 


358 


443 


307 


69.3% 


136 


53 


266 


319 


281 


88.1% 


38 


Jackson 


34 


172 


206 


158 


76.7% 


48 


26 


128 


154 


114 


74.0% 


40 


District Totals 


119 


530 


649 


465 


71.6% 


184 


79 


394 


473 


395 


83.5% 


78 



State Totals. 32,590 85,748 118,338 79,680 67.3% 38,658 14,954 40,925 55,879 39,576 70.8% 16,303 



139 



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

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



Felonies 



Begin End 

Prosecutorial Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

District 7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



Misdemeanors 



Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



1 


785 


1,239 


2,024 


1,230 


60.8% 


794 


604 


1,030 


1,634 


1,090 


66.7% 


544 


: 


411 


1.293 


1,704 


1,255 


73.7% 


449 


301 


887 


1,188 


955 


80.4% 


233 


3A 


1,050 


2,112 


3,162 


2,113 


66.8% 


1,049 


508 


1,762 


2,270 


1,928 


84.9% 


342 


3B 


473 


2,030 


2,503 


1,775 


70.9% 


728 


152 


894 


1,046 


772 


73.8% 


274 


4 


672 


3,239 


3,911 


2,888 


73.8% 


1,023 


144 


776 


920 


678 


73.7% 


242 


s 


705 


3,245 


3,950 


2,565 


64.9% 


1,385 


617 


1,706 


2,323 


1,448 


62.3% 


875 


6A 


393 


1,153 


1,546 


888 


57.4% 


658 


171 


455 


626 


398 


63.6% 


228 


6B 


170 


1,052 


1,222 


936 


76.6% 


286 


117 


441 


558 


332 


59.5% 


226 


7 


984 


3,590 


4,574 


3,217 


70.3% 


1,357 


435 


1,159 


1,594 


899 


56.4% 


695 


X 


526 


2,061 


2,587 


1,862 


72.0% 


725 


613 


1,819 


2,432 


1,849 


76.0% 


583 


l > 


1,116 


2,581 


3,697 


2,658 


71.9% 


1,039 


790 


1,981 


2,771 


1,858 


67.1% 


913 


10 


2,103 


5,434 


7,537 


5,004 


66.4% 


2,533 


497 


2,581 


3,078 


2,538 


82.5% 


540 


11 


472 


2,216 


2,688 


1,920 


71.4% 


768 


207 


916 


1,123 


905 


80.6% 


218 


12 


1,137 


3,248 


4,385 


2,558 


58.3% 


1,827 


188 


578 


766 


520 


67.9% 


246 


13 


620 


1,248 


1,868 


1,151 


61.6% 


717 


208 


485 


693 


512 


73.9% 


181 


14 


2,406 


2,338 


4,744 


3,056 


64.4% 


1,688 


210 


602 


812 


614 


75.6% 


198 


ISA 


812 


3,141 


3,953 


3,114 


78.8% 


839 


253 


921 


1,174 


1,019 


86.8% 


155 


15B 


485 


1,119 


1,604 


1,114 


69.5% 


490 


81 


220 


301 


241 


80.1% 


60 


16A 


449 


1,070 


1,519 


1,016 


66.9% 


503 


110 


328 


438 


281 


64.2% 


157 


16B 


900 


2,897 


3,797 


1,826 


48.1% 


1,971 


597 


952 


1,549 


711 


45.9% 


838 


17A 


693 


1,740 


2,433 


1,639 


67.4% 


794 


415 


1,173 


1,588 


1,106 


69.6% 


482 


17B 


398 


1,194 


1,592 


1,213 


76.2% 


379 


231 


933 


1,164 


929 


79.8% 


235 


18 


2,369 


5,937 


8,306 


6,008 


72.3% 


2,298 


383 


820 


1,203 


921 


76.6% 


282 


19A 


1,265 


2,732 


3,997 


2,395 


59.9% 


1,602 


533 


1,390 


1,923 


1,266 


65.8% 


657 


19B 


475 


1,398 


1,873 


1,050 


56.1% 


823 


316 


725 


1,041 


692 


66.5% 


349 


20 


1,211 


3,887 


5,098 


3,851 


75.5% 


1,247 


870 


2,529 


3,399 


2,651 


78.0% 


748 


21 


667 


2,674 


3,341 


2,599 


77.8% 


742 


226 


1,380 


1,606 


1,383 


86.1% 


223 


22 


873 


2,108 


2,981 


1,983 


66.5% 


998 


548 


1,704 


2,252 


1,637 


72.7% 


615 


23 


271 


712 


983 


656 


66.7% 


327 


255 


583 


838 


601 


71.7% 


237 


24 


405 


459 


864 


500 


57.9% 


364 


184 


356 


540 


303 


56.1% 


237 


25 


1,620 


2,996 


4,616 


2,643 


57.3% 


1,973 


1,374 


2,440 


3,814 


2,579 


67.6% 


1,235 


26 


1,360 


4,316 


5,676 


3,724 


65.6% 


1,952 


987 


2,063 


3,050 


1,632 


53.5% 


1,418 


27A 


1,017 


2,607 


3,624 


2,471 


68.2% 


1,153 


299 


762 


1,061 


682 


64.3% 


379 


27B 


896 


1,409 


2,305 


1,423 


61.7% 


882 


210 


424 


634 


370 


58.4% 


264 


28 


1,015 


1,814 


2,829 


2,341 


82.8% 


488 


264 


783 


1,047 


920 


87.9% 


127 


29 


1,086 


2,096 


3,182 


1,894 


59.5% 


1,288 


860 


1,557 


2,417 


1,539 


63.7% 


878 


30 


300 


1,363 


1,663 


1,144 


68.8% 


519 


196 


810 


1,006 


817 


81.2% 


189 



State Totals 32,590 85,748 118,338 79,680 



67.3% 38,658 14,954 40,925 55,879 39,576 



70.8% 16,303 



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

140 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



Guilty Plea to Lesser 
Offense (11,186) 




D. A. Dismissal (24,220) 



Other (1,321) 

Not Guilty Plea - Jury 
Trial (2,207) 



Guilty Plea to Offense 
Charged (40,746) 



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, the latter of which also includes dismissals after 
deferred prosecution. "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 as follows: 





Median Age 


Manner of Disposition 


at Disposition 


Not Guilty Plea - Jury Trial 


209.0 


Guilty Plea to Offense Charged 


89.0 


Guilty Plea to Lesser Offense 


82.0 


Dismissal 


131.0 


Other 


81.0 



141 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1, 1991-- June 30, 1992 





Guiltv Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 


District 1 

Camden 


Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


4 


4 


1 


10 


1 








20 


3 


Chowan 


19 


55 


6 


21 








4 


105 


61 


Currituck 


38 


62 


4 


83 


6 








193 


89 


Dare 


93 


56 


9 


164 


34 





4 


360 





Gates 


17 


15 


8 


10 


7 





1 


58 


4 


Pasquotank 


162 


91 


12 


107 


29 





5 


406 


226 


Perquimans 


32 


11 





41 


3 





1 


88 


34 


District Totals 


365 


294 


40 


436 


80 





15 


1,230 


417 




29.7% 


23.9% 


3.3% 


35.4% 


6.5% 


0.0% 


1.2% 


100.0% 


33.9% 


District 2 

Beaufort 


322 


56 


24 


95 


17 





11 


525 


400 


Hyde 


43 


3 


1 


1 


1 





1 


50 


39 


Martin 


260 


30 


13 


63 


8 





8 


382 


252 


Tyrrell 


30 


5 


2 


5 








4 


46 


24 


Washington 


165 


36 


14 


32 


4 





1 


252 


159 


District Totals 


820 


130 


54 


196 


30 





25 


1,255 


874 




65.3% 


10.4% 


4.3% 


15.6% 


2.4% 


0.0% 


2.0% 


100.0% 


69.6% 


District 3A 




















Pitt 


739 


416 


70 


772 


92 





24 


2,113 


1,163 




35.0% 


19.7% 


3.3% 


36.5% 


4.4% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 


55.0% 


District 3B 




















Carteret 


316 


68 


8 


157 


12 





20 


581 


383 


Craven 


678 


175 


12 


160 


27 





16 


1,068 


813 


Pamlico 


49 


44 


3 


22 


5 





3 


126 


87 


District Totals 


1,043 


287 


23 


339 


44 





39 


1,775 


1,283 




58.8% 


16.2% 


1.3% 


19.1% 


2.5% 


0.0% 


2.2% 


100.0% 


72.3% 


District 4A 




















Duplin 


76 


331 


19 


213 


8 





4 


651 


328 


Jones 


33 


4 





20 


5 





1 


63 


| 43 


Sampson 


316 


97 


19 


166 


5 





7 


610 


299 


District Totals 


425 


432 


38 


399 


18 





12 


1,324 


670 




32.1% 


32.6% 


2.9% 


30.1% 


1.4% 


0.0% 


0.9% 


100.0% 


50.6% 



142 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1991- June 30, 1992 





Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 4B 




















Onslow 


803 


176 


45 


491 


38 





11 


1,564 


937 




51.3% 


11.3% 


2.9% 


31.4% 


2.4% 


0.0% 


0.7% 


100.0% 


59.9% 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


1,282 


274 


31 


606 


66 





31 


2,290 


1,251 


Pender 


105 


40 


9 


111 


2 





8 


275 


111 


District Totals 


1,387 


314 


40 


717 


68 





39 


2,565 


1,362 




54.1% 


12.2% 


1.6% 


28.0% 


2.7% 


0.0% 


1.5% 


100.0% 


53.1% 


District 6A 




















Halifax 


597 


80 


14 


174 


19 





4 


888 


792 




67.2% 


9.0% 


1.6% 


19.6% 


2.1% 


0.0% 


0.5% 


100.0% 


89.2% 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


187 


13 


7 


57 


3 





2 


269 


183 


Hertford 


233 


61 


12 


146 


1 





11 


464 


253 


Northampton 


125 


14 


10 


43 


3 





8 


203 


162 


District Totals 


545 


88 


29 


246 


7 





21 


936 


598 




58.2% 


9.4% 


3.1% 


26.3% 


0.7% 


0.0% 


2.2% 


100.0% 


63.9% 


District 7A 




















Nash 


537 


148 


17 


556 


33 





8 


1,299 


662 




41.3% 


11.4% 


1.3% 


42.8% 


2.5% 


0.0% 


0.6% 


100.0% 


51.0% 


District 7B-C 




















Edgecombe 


260 


132 


27 


528 








16 


963 


284 


Wilson 


373 


83 


18 


448 


15 





18 


955 


542 


District Totals 


633 


215 


45 


976 


15 





34 


1,918 


826 




33.0% 


11.2% 


2.3% 


50.9% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


1.8% 


100.0% 


43.1% 


District 8A 




















Greene 


58 


32 


7 


45 


4 





4 


150 


86 


Lenoir 


337 


197 


30 


162 


30 





20 


776 


540 


District Totals 


395 


229 


37 


207 


34 





24 


926 


626 




42.7% 


24.7% 


4.0% 


22.4% 


3.7% 


0.0% 


2.6% 


100.0% 


67.6% 


District 8B 




















Wayne 


500 


177 


25 


153 


67 





14 


936 


637 




53.4% 


18.9% 


2.7% 


16.3% 


7.2% 


0.0% 


1.5% 


100.0% 


68.1% 



143 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1, 1991-- June 30, 1992 





Guilty Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 9 




















Franklin 


301 


35 


4 


73 


25 





5 


443 


374 


Granville 


274 


85 


4 


180 


12 





1 


556 


350 


Person 


178 


123 


7 


231 


7 





4 


550 


301 


Vance 


533 


55 


3 


205 


17 





8 


821 





Warren 


149 


27 


2 


104 


2 





4 


288 


171 


District Totals 


1,435 


325 


20 


793 


63 





22 


2,658 


1,196 




54.0% 


12.2% 


0.8% 


29.8% 


2.4% 


0.0% 


0.8% 


100.0% 


45.0% 


District 10A-D 




















Wake 


3,163 


319 


76 


874 


533 





39 


5,004 


3,170 




63.2% 


6.4% 


1.5% 


17.5% 


10.7% 


0.0% 


0.8% 


100.0% 


63.3% 


District 11 




















Harnett 


318 


86 


10 


149 








9 


572 


261 


Johnston 


434 


117 


21 


147 


7 





31 


757 


518 


Lee 


316 


95 


18 


149 


9 





4 


591 


396 


District Totals 


1,068 


298 


49 


445 


16 





44 


1,920 


1,175 




55.6% 


15.5% 


2.6% 


23.2% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


2.3% 


100.0% 


61.2% 


District 12A-C 




















Cumberland 


1,752 


244 


39 


372 


83 





68 


2,558 


1,966 




68.5% 


9.5% 


1.5% 


14.5% 


3.2% 


0.0% 


2.7% 


100.0% 


76.9% 


District 13 




















Bladen 


247 


14 


18 


92 


11 





5 


387 


215 


Brunswick 


142 


83 


22 


243 


11 





2 


503 


285 


Columbus 


7K 


59 


24 


81 


4 





15 


261 


131 


District Totals 


467 


156 


64 


416 


26 





22 


1,151 


631 




40.6% 


13.6% 


5.6% 


36.1% 


2.3% 


0.0% 


1.9% 


100.0% 


54.8% 


District 14A-B 




















Durham 


1,725 


262 


47 


804 


186 





32 


3,056 


1,987 




56.4% 


8.6% 


1.5% 


26.3% 


6.1% 


0.0% 


1.0% 


100.0% 


65.0% 


District 15 A 




















Alamance 


1,984 


452 


40 


596 


31 





11 


3,114 


2,761 




63.7% 


14.5% 


1.3% 


19.1% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


0.4% 


100.0% 


88.7% 



144 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1, 1991-- June 30, 1992 





Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 15B 




















Chatham 


224 


22 


10 


109 


6 





22 


393 


299 


Orange 


448 


67 


17 


130 


43 





16 


721 


511 


District Totals 


672 


89 


27 


239 


49 





38 


1,114 


810 




60.3% 


8.0% 


2.4% 


21.5% 


4.4% 


0.0% 


3.4% 


100.0% 


72.7% 


District 16A 




















Hoke 


254 


46 


8 


31 


10 





5 


354 


284 


Scotland 


515 


48 


10 


78 


3 





8 


662 


551 


District Totals 


769 


94 


18 


109 


13 





13 


1,016 


835 




75.7% 


9.3% 


1.8% 


10.7% 


1.3% 


0.0% 


1.3% 


100.0% 


82.2% 


District 16B 




















Robeson 


1,403 


101 


91 


99 


88 





44 


1,826 


447 




76.8% 


5.5% 


5.0% 


5.4% 


4.8% 


0.0% 


2.4% 


100.0% 


24.5% 


District 17A 




















Caswell 


84 


28 


3 


39 


2 





10 


166 


101 


Rockingham 


734 


212 


56 


422 


40 





9 


1,473 


877 


District Totals 


818 


240 


59 


461 


42 





19 


1,639 


978 




49.9% 


14.6% 


3.6% 


28.1% 


2.6% 


0.0% 


1.2% 


100.0% 


59.7% 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


353 


48 


15 


89 


2 





1 


508 


401 


Surry 


503 


68 


2 


111 


9 





12 


705 


511 


District Totals 


856 


116 


17 


200 


11 





13 


1,213 


912 




70.6% 


9.6% 


1.4% 


16.5% 


0.9% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 


75.2% 


District 18A-E 




















Guilford 


3,430 


609 


217 


1,108 


575 





69 


6,008 


3,880 




57.1% 


10.1% 


3.6% 


18.4% 


9.6% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 


64.6% 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


320 


226 


34 


539 


19 





17 


1,155 


462 




27.7% 


19.6% 


2.9% 


46.7% 


1.6% 


0.0% 


1.5% 


100.0% 


40.0% 



145 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1, 1991-- June 30, 1992 

ssal Speedy 

With Trial 

Leave Dismissals 





Guilty 1 


'leas 


Jury 


DAD 




As 


Lesser 


Without 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


District 19B 










Montgomery 


102 


35 


14 


117 


Randolph 


439 


60 


49 


205 


District Totals 


541 


95 


63 


322 




51.5% 


9.0% 


6.0% 


30.7% 


District 19C 










Rowan 


417 


134 


33 


606 




33.6% 


10.8% 


2.7% 


48.9% 


District 20A 










Anson 


97 


53 


7 


139 


Moore 


414 


102 


17 


539 


Richmond 


368 


154 


23 


364 


District Totals 


879 


309 


47 


1,042 




37.6% 


13.2% 


2.0% 


44.6% 


District 20B 










Stanly 


189 


36 


5 


186 


Union 


374 


289 


18 


389 


District Totals 


563 


325 


23 


575 




37.1% 


21.4% 


1.5% 


37.9% 


District 21A-D 










Forsyth 


1,593 


381 


101 


466 




61.3% 


14.7% 


3.9% 


17.9% 


District 22 










Alexander 


94 


19 


10 


27 


Davidson 


410 


86 


21 


100 


Davie 


74 


9 


2 


13 


Iredell 


593 


248 


21 


191 


District Totals 


1,171 


362 


54 


331 




59.1% 


18.3% 


2.7% 


16.7% 



Total 
Total Negotiated 
Other Dispositions Pleas 









22 





22 





2.1% 


0.0% 


25 





2.0% 


0.0% 


10 





2 











12 





0.5% 


0.0% 


2 





6 





8 





0.5% 


0.0% 


24 





0.9% 


0.0% 


1 





17 











17 





35 





1.8% 


0.0% 



3 


271 


35 


4 


779 


476 


7 


1,050 


511 


0.7% 


100.0% 


48.7% 


25 


1,240 


1,007 


2.0% 


100.0% 


81.2% 


5 


311 


138 


10 


1,084 


505 


31 


940 


505 


46 


2,335 


1,148 


2.0% 


100.0% 


49.2% 


9 


427 


382 


13 


1,089 


890 


22 


1,516 


1,272 


1.5% 


100.0% 


83.9% 



34 2,599 1,675 

1.3% 100.0% 64.4% 



2 


153 


114 


15 


649 


474 


2 


100 


67 


11 


1,081 


637 


30 


1,983 


1,292 


1.5% 


100.0% 


65.2% 



146 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1991-- June 30, 1992 





Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 23 




















Alleghany 


13 


3 


2 


2 


1 





7 


28 


15 


Ashe 


38 


7 


6 


14 








5 


70 


41 


Wilkes 


325 


19 


26 


43 


7 





23 


443 


61 


Yadkin 


62 


32 


11 


6 


3 





1 


115 


73 


District Totals 


438 


61 


45 


65 


11 





36 


656 


190 




66.8% 


9.3% 


6.9% 


9.9% 


1.7% 


0.0% 


5.5% 


100.0% 


29.0% 


District 24 




















Avery 


14 


7 





37 


7 





7 


72 





Madison 


26 


13 


9 


38 


5 





1 


92 


31 


Mitchell 


32 


8 


2 


35 


14 





2 


93 


47 


Watauga 


75 


31 


6 


97 








4 


213 


101 


Yancey 


11 


3 


2 


14 











30 


12 


District Totals 


158 


62 


19 


221 


26 





14 


500 


191 




31.6% 


12.4% 


3.8% 


44.2% 


5.2% 


0.0% 


2.8% 


100.0% 


38.2% 


District 25A 




















Burke 


209 


45 


5 


230 


71 





11 


571 


148 


Caldwell 


343 


84 


20 


437 


45 





10 


939 


585 


District Totals 


552 


129 


25 


667 


116 





21 


1,510 


733 




36.6% 


8.5% 


1.7% 


44.2% 


7.7% 


0.0% 


1.4% 


100.0% 


48.5% 


District 25B 




















Catawba 


343 


194 


13 


531 


43 





9 


1,133 


456 




30.3% 


17.1% 


1.1% 


46.9% 


3.8% 


0.0% 


0.8% 


100.0% 


40.2% 


District 26A-C 




















Mecklenburg 


385 


1,896 


178 


978 


183 





104 


3,724 


1,900 




10.3% 


50.9% 


4.8% 


26.3% 


4.9% 


0.0% 


2.8% 


100.0% 


51.0% 


District 27A 




















Gaston 


1,224 


258 


84 


786 


70 





49 


2,471 


1,425 




49.5% 


10.4% 


3.4% 


31.8% 


2.8% 


0.0% 


2.0% 


100.0% 


57.7% 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


439 


76 


49 


208 


7 





29 


808 


114 


Lincoln 


348 


31 


37 


186 


6 





7 


615 


339 


District Totals 


787 


107 


86 


394 


13 





36 


1,423 


453 




55.3% 


7.5% 


6.0% 


27.7% 


0.9% 


0.0% 


2.5% 


100.0% 


31.8% 



147 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1991-- June 30, 1992 





Guiltv Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 28 




















Buncombe 


1,629 


62 


62 


389 


169 





30 


2,341 


1,401 




69.6% 


2.6% 


2.6% 


16.6% 


7.2% 


0.0% 


1.3% 


100.0% 


59.8% 


District 29 




















Henderson 


375 


92 


8 


183 


59 





30 


747 


476 


McDowell 


149 


11 


16 


90 


1 





3 


270 


128 


Polk 


51 


2 


7 


9 








1 


70 


42 


Rutherford 


319 


54 


13 


141 


46 





15 


588 


237 


Transylvania 


S4 


19 


4 


81 


25 





6 


219 


61 


District Totals 


978 


178 


48 


504 


131 





55 


1,894 


944 




51.6% 


9.4% 


2.5% 


26.6% 


6.9% 


0.0% 


2.9% 


100.0% 


49.8% 


District 30A 




















Cherokee 


63 


21 


3 


69 


40 





8 


204 


1 


Clay 


23 


5 


5 


27 


7 





29 


96 





Graham 


30 


3 


1 


87 


2 





1 


124 


6 


Macon 


60 


11 


5 


37 


5 





9 


127 


14 


Swain 


56 


6 


7 


34 


2 





23 


128 


69 


District Totals 


232 


46 


21 


254 


56 





70 


679 


90 




34.2% 


6.8% 


3.1% 


37.4% 


8.2% 


0.0% 


10.3% 


100.0% 


13.3% 


District 30B 




















Haywood 


132 


46 


22 


94 


9 





4 


307 


192 


Jackson 


7 3 


24 


8 


45 








8 


158 


125 


District Totals 


205 


70 


30 


139 


9 





12 


465 


317 




44.1% 


15.1% 


6.5% 


29.9% 


1.9% 


0.0% 


2.6% 


100.0% 


68.2% 


State Totals 


40,746 


11,186 


2,207 


20,987 


3,233 





1,321 


79,680 


47,062 




51.1% 


14.0% 


2.8% 


26.3% 


4.1% 


0.0% 


1.7% 


100.0% 


59.1% 



148 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES IN THE 

SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

July 1,1991 --June 30, 1992 



Prosecutorial 


Cuilty 

As 


Pleas 
Lesser 


Jury 


DA Dism 


issal 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 


District 


Without 


With 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


1 


365 


294 


40 


436 


80 





15 


1,230 


417 




29.7% 


23.9% 


3.3% 


35.4% 


6.5% 


0.0% 


1.2% 


100.0% 


33.9% 


2 


820 


130 


54 


196 


30 





25 


1,255 


874 




65.3% 


10.4% 


4.3% 


15.6% 


2.4% 


0.0% 


2.0% 


100.0% 


69.6% 


3A 


739 


416 


70 


772 


92 





24 


2,113 


1,163 




35.0% 


19.7% 


3.3% 


36.5% 


4.4% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 


55.0% 


3B 


1,043 


287 


23 


339 


44 





39 


1,775 


1,283 




58.8% 


16.2% 


1.3% 


19.1% 


2.5% 


0.0% 


2.2% 


100.0% 


72.3% 


4 


1,228 


608 


83 


890 


56 





23 


2,888 


1,607 




42.5% 


21.1% 


2.9% 


30.8% 


1.9% 


0.0% 


0.8% 


100.0% 


55.6% 


5 


1,387 


314 


40 


717 


68 





39 


2,565 


1,362 




54.1% 


12.2% 


1.6% 


28.0% 


2.7% 


0.0% 


1.5% 


100.0% 


53.1% 


6A 


597 


80 


14 


174 


19 





4 


888 


792 




67.2% 


9.0% 


1.6% 


19.6% 


2.1% 


0.0% 


0.5% 


100.0% 


89.2% 


6B 


545 


ss 


29 


246 


7 





21 


936 


598 




58.2% 


9.4% 


3.1% 


26.3% 


0.7% 


0.0% 


2.2% 


100.0% 


63.9% 


7 


1,170 


363 


62 


1,532 


48 





42 


3,217 


1,488 




36.4% 


11.3% 


1.9% 


47.6% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


1.3% 


100.0% 


46.3% 


8 


895 


406 


62 


360 


101 





38 


1,862 


1,263 




48.1% 


21.8% 


3.3% 


19.3% 


5.4% 


0.0% 


2.0% 


100.0% 


67.8% 


9 


1,435 


325 


20 


793 


63 





22 


2,658 


1,196 


- 


54.0% 


12.2% 


0.8% 


29.8% 


2.4% 


0.0% 


0.8% 


100.0% 


45.0% 


10 


3,163 


319 


76 


874 


533 





39 


5,004 


3,170 




63.2% 


6.4% 


1.5% 


17.5% 


10.7% 


0.0% 


0.8% 


100.0% 


63.3% 


11 


1,068 


298 


49 


445 


16 





44 


1,920 


1,175 




55.6% 


15.5% 


2.6% 


23.2% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


2.3% 


100.0% 


61.2% 


12 


1,752 


244 


39 


372 


83 





68 


2,558 


1,966 




68.5% 


9.5% 


1.5% 


14.5% 


3.2% 


0.0% 


2.7% 


100.0% 


76.9% 


13 


467 


156 


64 


416 


26 





22 


1,151 


631 




40.6% 


13.6% 


5.6% 


36.1% 


2.3% 


0.0% 


1.9% 


100.0% 


54.8% 


14 


1,725 


262 


47 


804 


186 





32 


3,056 


1,987 




56.4% 


8.6% 


1.5% 


26.3% 


6.1% 


0.0% 


1.0% 


100.0% 


65.0% 


15A 


1,984 


452 


40 


596 


31 





11 


3,114 


2,761 




63.7% 


14.5% 


1.3% 


19.1% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


0.4% 


100.0% 


88.7% 


15B 


672 


89 


27 


239 


49 





38 


1,114 


810 




60.3% 


8.0% 


2.4% 


21.5% 


4.4% 


0.0% 


3.4% 


100.0% 


72.7% 


16A 


769 


94 


18 


109 


13 





13 


1,016 


835 




75.7% 


9.3% 


1.8% 


10.7% 


1.3% 


0.0% 


1.3% 


100.0% 


82.2% 



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

149 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES IN THE 

SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



Prosecutorial 


Guilty Pleas 
As Lesser 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 


District 


Without 


With 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


16B 


1,403 


101 


91 


99 


88 





44 


1,826 


447 




76.8% 


5.5% 


5.0% 


5.4% 


4.8% 


0.0% 


2.4% 


100.0% 


24.5% 


17A 


818 


240 


59 


461 


42 





19 


1,639 


978 




49.9% 


14.6% 


3.6% 


28.1% 


2.6% 


0.0% 


1.2% 


100.0% 


59.7% 


17B 


856 


116 


17 


200 


11 





13 


1,213 


912 




70.6% 


9.6% 


1.4% 


16.5% 


0.9% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 


75.2% 


IX 


3,430 


609 


217 


1,108 


575 





69 


6,008 


3,880 




57.1% 


10.1% 


3.6% 


18.4% 


9.6% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 


64.6% 


19A 


737 


360 


67 


1,145 


44 





42 


2,395 


1,469 




30.8% 


15.0% 


2.8% 


47.8% 


1.8% 


0.0% 


1.8% 


100.0% 


61.3% 


19B 


541 


95 


63 


322 


22 





7 


1,050 


511 




51.5% 


9.0% 


6.0% 


30.7% 


2.1% 


0.0% 


0.7% 


100.0% 


48.7% 


20 


1,442 


634 


70 


1,617 


20 





68 


3,851 


2,420 




37.4% 


16.5% 


1.8% 


42.0% 


0.5% 


0.0% 


1.8% 


100.0% 


62.8% 


21 


1,593 


381 


101 


466 


24 





34 


2,599 


1,675 




61.3% 


14.7% 


3.9% 


17.9% 


0.9% 


0.0% 


1.3% 


100.0% 


64.4% 


22 


1,171 


362 


54 


331 


35 





30 


1,983 


1,292 




59.1% 


18.3% 


2.7% 


16.7% 


1.8% 


0.0% 


1.5% 


100.0% 


65.2% 


23 


438 


61 


45 


65 


11 





36 


656 


190 




66.8% 


9.3% 


6.9% 


9.9% 


1.7% 


0.0% 


5.5% 


100.0% 


29.0% 


24 


158 


62 


19 


221 


26 





14 


500 


191 




31.6% 


12.4% 


3.8% 


44.2% 


5.2% 


0.0% 


2.8% 


100.0% 


38.2% 


25 


895 


323 


38 


1,198 


159 





30 


2,643 


1,189 




33.9% 


12.2% 


1.4% 


45.3% 


6.0% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 


45.0% 


26 


385 


1,896 


178 


978 


183 





104 


3,724 


1,900 




10.3% 


50.9% 


4.8% 


26.3% 


4.9% 


0.0% 


2.8% 


100.0% 


51.0% 


27A 


1,224 


258 


84 


786 


70 





49 


2,471 


1,425 




49.5% 


10.4% 


3.4% 


31.8% 


2.8% 


0.0% 


2.0% 


100.0% 


57.7% 


27B 


787 


107 


86 


394 


13 





36 


1,423 


453 




55.3% 


7.5% 


6.0% 


27.7% 


0.9% 


0.0% 


2.5% 


100.0% 


31.8% 


28 


1,629 


62 


62 


389 


169 





30 


2,341 


1,401 




69.6% 


2.6% 


2.6% 


16.6% 


7.2% 


0.0% 


1.3% 


100.0% 


59.8% 


29 


978 


178 


48 


504 


131 





55 


1,894 


944 




51.6% 


9.4% 


2.5% 


26.6% 


6.9% 


0.0% 


2.9% 


100.0% 


49.8% 


30 


437 


116 


51 


393 


65 





82 


1,144 


407 




38.2% 


10.1% 


4.5% 


34.4% 


5.7% 


0.0% 


7.2% 


100.0% 


35.6% 


State Totals 


40,746 


11,186 


2,207 


20,987 


3,233 





1,321 


79,680 


47,062 




51.1% 


14.0% 


2.8% 


26.3% 


4.1% 


0.0% 


1.7% 


100.0% 


59.1% 


This table is 


provided because prosecuti 


^rial districts are not coterminous with s 


;uperior court districts. (See the district map 


•s in Part II.) 



150 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1991 --June 30, 1992 



D. A. Dismissal (11,489) 



Guilty Plea to Lesser 
Offense (1,645) 




Other (12,920) 



Not Guilty Plea - Jury 
Trial (902) 



Guilty Plea to Offense 
Charged (12,620) 



Guilty pleas account for 36.1% of superior court 
misdemeanor dispositions, nearly all of which are 
guilty pleas to the offense charged. The "other" 
category includes withdrawn appeals, cases remanded 
to district court for judgment, and other miscellaneous 
dispositions such as changes of venue, dismissal by the 
court, and dispositions of probation violations from 
other counties. Dismissals include voluntary dismissals 
with and without leave, the latter of which includes 
dismissals after deferred prosecution. 



The median ages (in days) of cases disposed by each 
method of disposition are as follows: 





Median Age 


Manner of Disposition 


at Disposition 


Not Guilty Plea - Jury Trial 


163.0 


Guilty Plea to Offense Charged 


103.0 


Guilty Plea to Lesser Offense 


70.0 


Dismissal 


111.0 


Other 


62.0 



151 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1, 1991-- June 30, 1992 





(.iuilt\ Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 1 




















Camden 


10 


12 


2 


5 


4 








33 


6 


Chowan 


26 


17 


2 


30 


2 





19 


96 


21 


Currituck 


32 


16 


2 


30 


27 





15 


122 


30 


Dare 


74 


6-1 


23 


94 


32 





92 


379 





Gates 


19 


13 





14 


2 





15 


63 


2 


Pasquotank 


82 


21 


4 


52 


35 





87 


281 


48 


Perquimans 


37 


5 


2 


25 


1 





46 


116 


11 


District Totals 


280 


148 


35 


250 


103 





274 


1,090 


118 




25.7% 


13.6% 


3.2% 


22.9% 


9.4% 


0.0% 


25.1% 


100.0% 


10.8% 


District 2 




















Beaufort 


144 


11 


12 


84 


24 





217 


492 


127 


Hyde 


16 








2 


1 





16 


35 


7 


Martin 


59 


8 


2 


29 


16 





100 


214 


31 


Tyrrell 


28 


2 


2 


1 


2 





34 


69 


9 


Washington 


37 


3 


9 


18 


10 





68 


145 


28 


District Totals 


284 


24 


25 


134 


53 





435 


955 


202 




29.7% 


2.5% 


2.6% 


14.0% 


5.5% 


0.0% 


45.5% 


100.0% 


21.2% 


District 3A 




















Pitt 


1,184 


53 


26 


244 


87 





334 


1,928 


633 




61.4% 


2.7% 


1.3% 


12.7% 


4.5% 


0.0% 


17.3% 


100.0% 


32.8% 


District 3B 




















Carteret 


77 


1 


5 


59 


25 





153 


320 


56 


Craven 


181 


8 


14 


84 


15 





118 


420 


92 


Pamlico 


7 








11 


2 





12 


32 


7 


District Totals 


265 


9 


19 


154 


42 





283 


772 


155 




34.3% 


1.2% 


2.5% 


19.9% 


5.4% 


0.0% 


36.7% 


100.0% 


20.1% 


District 4A 




















Duplin 


25 


12 


1 


45 


1 





18 


102 


19 


Jones 


11 








13 








6 


30 


10 


Sampson 


73 


5 


10 


41 


1 





27 


157 


36 


District Totals 


109 


17 


11 


99 


2 





51 


289 


65 




37.7% 


5.9% 


3.8% 


34.3% 


0.7% 


0.0% 


17.6% 


100.0% 


22.5% 



'52 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1, 1991-- June 30, 1992 

Guilty Pleas DA Dism issal Speedy 

With Trial 

Leave Dismissals 





As 


Lesser 


Jury 


Without 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


District 4B 










Onslow 


97 


9 


33 


156 




24.9% 


2.3% 


8.5% 


40.1% 


District 5 










New Hanover 


569 


20 


15 


410 


Pender 


49 


2 


2 


61 


District Totals 


618 


22 


17 


471 




42.7% 


1.5% 


1.2% 


32.5% 



19 





4.9% 


0.0% 


69 





1 





70 





4.8% 


0.0% 



Total 
Total Negotiated 
Other Dispositions Pleas 



75 


389 


61 


19.3% 


100.0% 


15.7% 


243 


1,326 


397 


7 


122 


IX 



250 1,448 415 

17.3% 100.0% 28.7% 



District 6A 




Halifax 


169 




42.5% 


District 6B 




Bertie 


35 


Hertford 


72 


Northampton 


50 


District Totals 


157 




47.3% 


District 7A 




Nash 


131 




36.2% 


District 7B-C 




Edgecombe 


90 


Wilson 


63 


District Totals 


153 




28.5% 


District 8A 




Greene 


17 


Lenoir 


243 


District Totals 


260 




31.5% 



18 

4.5% 



2.0% 



84 
21.1% 



1 


7 


19 


2 


1 


53 








30 


3 


8 


102 


0.9% 


2.4% 


30.7% 


11 


13 


92 


3.0% 


3.6% 


25.4% 


3 


1 


73 


10 


2 


113 


13 


3 


186 


2.4% 


0.6% 


34.6% 


8 


6 


10 


63 


11 


181 


71 


17 


191 


8.6% 


2.1% 


23.1% 



17 





4.3% 


0.0% 








3 











3 





0.9% 


0.0% 


22 





6.1% 


0.0% 


3 





6 





9 





1.7% 


0.0% 


3 





49 





52 





6.3% 


0.0% 



102 398 224 

25.6% 100.0% 56.3% 



18 


80 


24 


26 


157 


33 


15 


95 


48 


59 


332 


105 


17.8% 


100.0% 


31.6% 


93 


362 


83 


25.7% 


100.0% 


22.9% 


74 


244 


32 


99 


293 


73 


173 


537 


105 


32.2% 


100.0% 


19.6% 


57 


101 


8 


178 


725 


57 


235 


826 


65 


28.5% 


100.0% 


7.9% 



District 8B 

Wayne 



251 46 11 147 79 489 1,023 240 

24.5% 4.5% 1.1% 14.4% 7.7% 0.0% 47.8% 100.0% 23.5% 



153 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1991-- June 30, 1992 





Guiltv Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 9 




















Franklin 


104 


40 


4 


66 


13 





114 


341 


169 


Granville 


120 


23 


7 


122 


8 





93 


373 


132 


Person 


152 


10 


9 


144 


9 





85 


409 


165 


Vance 


309 


24 


2 


153 


13 





65 


566 


2 


Warren 


57 


S 


4 


46 


5 





49 


169 


56 


District Totals 


742 


105 


26 


531 


48 





406 


1,858 


524 




39.9% 


5.7% 


1.4% 


28.6% 


2.6% 


0.0% 


21.9% 


100.0% 


28.2% 


District 10A-D 




















Wake 


563 


42 


41 


252 


935 





705 


2,538 


442 




22.2% 


1.7% 


1.6% 


9.9% 


36.8% 


0.0% 


27.8% 


100.0% 


17.4% 


District 11 




















Harnett 


36 





3 


68 


3 





75 


185 


26 


Johnston 


158 


18 


8 


75 


8 





95 


362 


116 


Lee 


129 


3 


13 


82 


11 





120 


358 


131 


District Totals 


323 


21 


24 


225 


22 





290 


905 


273 




35.7% 


2.3% 


2.7% 


24.9% 


2.4% 


0.0% 


32.0% 


100.0% 


30.2% 


District 12A-C 




















Cumberland 


169 


2 


14 


83 


20 





232 


520 


159 




32.5% 


0.4% 


2.7% 


16.0% 


3.8% 


0.0% 


44.6% 


100.0% 


30.6% 


District 13 




















Bladen 


62 


1 


10 


40 


6 





66 


185 


55 


Brunswick 


46 


5 


11 


31 


17 





55 


165 


25 


Columbus 


43 


5 


7 


32 


1 





74 


162 


36 


District Totals 


151 


11 


28 


103 


24 





195 


512 


116 




29.5% 


2.1% 


5.5% 


20.1% 


4.7% 


0.0% 


38.1% 


100.0% 


22.7% 


District 14A-B 




















Durham 


274 


2') 


7 


192 


31 





81 


614 


307 




44.6% 


4.7% 


1.1% 


31.3% 


5.0% 


0.0% 


13.2% 


100.0% 


50.0% 


District 15A 




















Alamance 


563 


yj 


20 


169 


6 





222 


1,019 


584 




55.3% 


3.8% 


2.0% 


16.6% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


21.8% 


100.0% 


57.3% 



154 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1,1991-- June 30, 1992 

Guilty Pleas DA Dismissal Speedy 





As 


Lesser 


Jury 


Without 


With 


Trial 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


>ismiss 


District 15B 














Chatham 


40 


7 


3 


12 


8 





Orange 


12 


4 


5 


25 


9 





District Totals 


52 


11 


8 


37 


17 







21.6% 


4.6% 


3.3% 


15.4% 


7.1% 


0.0% 


District 16A 














Hoke 


34 





12 


15 


8 





Scotland 


85 


3 


4 


31 


4 





District Totals 


119 


3 


16 


46 


12 







42.3% 


1.1% 


5.7% 


16.4% 


4.3% 


0.0% 


District 16B 














Robeson 


235 


1 


12 


2^, 


86 







33.1% 


0.1% 


1.7% 


3.2% 


12.1% 


0.0% 


District 17A 














Caswell 


102 


9 


3 


37 








Rockingham 


376 


48 


16 


195 


35 





District Totals 


478 


57 


19 


232 


35 







43.2% 


5.2% 


1.7% 


21.0% 


3.2% 


0.0% 



Total 
Total Negotiated 
Other Dispositions Pleas 



26 


96 


22 


90 


145 


17 


116 


241 


39 


48.1% 


100.0% 


16.2% 


52 


121 


29 


33 


160 


80 


85 


281 


109 


30.2% 


100.0% 


38.8% 



354 711 66 

49.8% 100.0% 9.3% 



96 


247 


92 


189 


859 


361 


285 


1,106 


453 


25.8% 


100.0% 


41.0% 



District 17B 




Stokes 


162 


Surry 


323 


District Totals 


485 




52.2% 


District 18A-E 




Guilford 


377 




40.9% 



6 


3 


45 


19 


3 


68 


25 


6 


113 


2.7% 


0.6% 


12.2% 


28 


33 


136 


3.0% 


3.6% 


14.8% 



11 





11 





22 





2.4% 


0.0% 


75 





8.1% 


0.0% 



92 


319 


160 


186 


610 


139 


278 


929 


299 


29.9% 


100.0% 


32.2% 



272 921 345 

29.5% 100.0% 37.5% 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 



153 27 17 276 21 396 890 80 

17.2% 3.0% 1.9% 31.0% 2.4% 0.0% 44.5% 100.0% 9.0% 



155 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1991- June 30, 1992 

Guilty Pleas DA Dismissal Speedy 

As Lesser Jury Without With Trial 

Charged Offense Trials Leave Leave Dismissals 



Total 
Total Negotiated 
Other Dispositions Pleas 



District 19B 




Montgomery 


26 


Randolph 


110 


District Totals 


136 




19.7% 


District 19C 




Rowan 


63 




16.8% 


District 20A 




Anson 


61 


Moore 


124 


Richmond 


109 


District Totals 


294 




21.9% 


District 20B 




Stanly 


163 


Union 


190 


District Totals 


353 




27.0% 


District 21A-D 




Forsyth 


477 




34.5% 


District 22 




Alexander 


31 


Davidson 


113 


Davie 


31 


Iredell 


186 


District Totals 


361 




22.1% 



3 


1 


S3 


7 


14 


162 


10 


15 


245 


1.4% 


2.2% 


35.4% 


1 


9 


124 


0.3% 


2.4% 


33.0% 


15 





67 


14 


1 


218 


30 


5 


224 


59 


6 


509 


4.4% 


0.4% 


37.9% 


s 


5 


123 


36 


9 


243 


44 


14 


366 


3.4% 


1.1% 


28.0% 


49 


27 


252 


3.5% 


2.0% 


18.2% 


3 


3 


19 


') 


7 


94 


1 





22 


89 


12 


63 


102 


22 


198 


6.2% 


1.3% 


12.1% 



2 





30 





32 





4.6% 


0.0% 


35 





9.3% 


0.0% 


4 





1 





1 





6 





0.4% 


0.0% 


16 





1 





17 





1.3% 


0.0% 


18 





1.3% 


0.0% 


2 





17 











28 





47 





2.9% 


0.0% 



102 


217 


11 


152 


475 


95 


254 


692 


106 


36.7% 


100.0% 


15.3% 


144 


376 


118 


38.3% 


100.0% 


31.4% 


123 


270 


54 


147 


505 


146 


198 


567 


123 


468 


1,342 


323 


34.9% 


100.0% 


24.1% 


226 


541 


239 


289 


768 


332 


515 


1,309 


571 


39.3% 


100.0% 


43.6% 


560 


1,383 


355 


40.5% 


100.0% 


25.7% 


123 


181 


23 


225 


465 


96 


98 


152 


13 


461 


839 


151 


907 


1,637 


283 


55.4% 


100.0% 


17.3% 



156 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 



Guilty Pleas 





As 


Lesser 


Jury 


Without 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


District 23 










Alleghany 


: 





1 


3 


Ashe 


20 


1 


3 


6 


Wilkes 


79 


4 


12 


36 


Yadkin 


28 


1 


4 


11 


District Totals 


129 


6 


20 


56 




21.5% 


1.0% 


3.3% 


9.3% 


District 24 










Avery 


26 


3 


2 


19 


Madison 


8 





5 


15 


Mitchell 


5 


1 


2 


11) 


Watauga 


23 


4 


24 


33 


Yancey 


5 


1 





6 


District Totals 


67 


9 


33 


83 




22.1% 


3.0% 


10.9% 


27.4% 


District 2SA 










Burke 


175 


40 


6 


171 


Caldwell 


252 


33 


9 


173 


District Totals 


427 


73 


15 


344 




25.9% 


4.4% 


0.9% 


20.9% 


District 25B 










Catawba 


108 


44 


9 


345 




11.6% 


4.7% 


1.0% 


37.1% 


District 26A-C 










Mecklenburg 


71 


300 


73 


749 




4.4% 


18.4% 


4.5% 


45.9% 


District 27A 










Gaston 


212 


24 


22 


213 




31.1% 


3.5% 


3.2% 


31.2% 



IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1991-- June 30, 1992 

DA Dism issal Speedy 

With Trial 

Leave Dismissals 



2 











19 





2 





23 





3.8% 


0.0% 


1 











1 

















2 





0.7% 


0.0% 


34 





45 





79 





4.8% 


0.0% 


32 





3.4% 


0.0% 


30 





1.8% 


0.0% 



Total 
Total Negotiated 
Other Dispositions Pleas 



44 

6.5% 0.0% 



36 


44 





35 


65 


14 


225 


375 


10 


71 


117 


15 


367 


601 


39 


61.1% 


100.0% 


6.5% 


11 


62 





5 


33 


4 


7 


26 


4 


85 


169 


11 


1 


13 


2 


109 


303 


21 


36.0% 


100.0% 


6.9% 


319 


745 


75 


391 


903 


302 


710 


1,648 


377 


43.1% 


100.0% 


22.9% 


393 


931 


112 


42.2% 


100.0% 


12.0% 


409 


1,632 


301 


25.1% 


100.0% 


18.4% 


167 


682 


202 


24.5% 


100.0% 


29.6% 



District 27B 




Cleveland 


63 


Lincoln 


27 


District Totals 


90 




24.3% 



11 


8 


43 


2 


19 


29 


13 


27 


72 


3.5% 


7.3% 


19.5% 









25 





25 





6.8% 


0.0% 



58 


183 


11 


85 


187 


18 


143 


370 


29 


38.6% 


100.0% 


7.8% 



57 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
July 1, 1991-- June 30, 1992 





Guilty Pleas 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 
Without With 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 28 




















Buncombe 


456 


3 


40 


127 


72 





222 


920 


333 




49.6% 


0.3% 


4.3% 


13.8% 


7.8% 


0.0% 


24.1% 


100.0% 


36.2% 


District 29 




















Henderson 


84 


4 


11 


74 


29 





137 


339 


75 


McDowell 


84 


3 


8 


49 








98 


242 


61 


Polk 


9 








24 








24 


57 


4 


Rutherford 


272 


2S 


8 


208 


72 





236 


824 


146 


Transylvania 


30 


1 


6 


11 


4 





25 


77 


16 


District Totals 


479 


36 


33 


366 


105 





520 


1,539 


302 




31.1% 


2.3% 


2.1% 


23.8% 


6.8% 


0.0% 


33.8% 


100.0% 


19.6% 


District 30A 




















Cherokee 


73 


2 


6 


51 


2 





43 


177 


1 


Clay 


9 


2 





4 


2 





10 


27 





Graham 


22 


1 





24 


5 





22 


74 


8 


Macon 


23 


3 


4 


18 


5 





33 


86 


3 


Swain 


6 





5 


23 


8 





16 


58 


21 


District Totals 


133 


8 


15 


120 


22 





124 


422 


33 




31.5% 


1.9% 


3.6% 


28.4% 


5.2% 


0.0% 


29.4% 


100.0% 


7.8% 


District 30B 




















Haywood 


XI) 


17 


20 


66 


7 





91 


281 


109 


Jackson 


42 


2 


5 


18 








47 


114 


48 


District Totals 


122 


19 


25 


84 


7 





138 


395 


157 




30.9% 


4.8% 


6.3% 


21.3% 


1.8% 


0.0% 


34.9% 


100.0% 


39.7% 


State Totals 


12,620 


1,645 


902 


8,981 


2,508 





12,920 


39,576 


9,929 




31.9% 


4.2% 


2.3% 


22.7% 


6.3% 


0.0% 


32.6% 


100.0% 


25.1% 



158 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS IN THE 

SUPERIOR COURTS BY PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



Prosecutorial 


Guilty 
As 


Pleas 
Lesser 


Jury 


DA Dismissal 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 


District 


Without 


With 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


1 


280 


148 


35 


250 


103 





274 


1,090 


118 




25.7% 


13.6% 


3.2% 


22.9% 


9.4% 


0.0% 


25.1% 


100.0% 


10.8% 


2 


284 


24 


25 


134 


53 





435 


955 


202 




29.7% 


2.5% 


2.6% 


14.0% 


5.5% 


0.0% 


45.5% 


100.0% 


21.2% 


3A 


1,184 


53 


26 


244 


87 





334 


1,928 


633 




61.4% 


2.7% 


1.3% 


12.7% 


4.5% 


0.0% 


17.3% 


100.0% 


32.8% 


3B 


265 


9 


19 


154 


42 





283 


772 


155 




34.3% 


1.2% 


2.5% 


19.9% 


5.4% 


0.0% 


36.7% 


100.0% 


20.1% 


4 


206 


2d 


44 


255 


21 





126 


678 


126 




30.4% 


3.8% 


6.5% 


37.6% 


3.1% 


0.0% 


18.6% 


100.0% 


18.6% 


5 


618 


22 


17 


471 


70 





250 


1,448 


415 




42.7% 


1.5% 


1.2% 


32.5% 


4.8% 


0.0% 


17.3% 


100.0% 


28.7% 


6A 


169 


18 


8 


84 


17 





102 


398 


224 




42.5% 


4.5% 


2.0% 


21.1% 


4.3% 


0.0% 


25.6% 


100.0% 


56.3% 


6B 


157 


3 


8 


102 


3 





59 


332 


105 




47.3% 


0.9% 


2.4% 


30.7% 


0.9% 


0.0% 


17.8% 


100.0% 


31.6% 


7 


284 


24 


16 


278 


31 





266 


899 


188 




31.6% 


2.7% 


1.8% 


30.9% 


3.4% 


0.0% 


29.6% 


100.0% 


20.9% 


8 


511 


117 


28 


338 


131 





724 


1,849 


305 




27.6% 


6.3% 


1.5% 


18.3% 


7.1% 


0.0% 


39.2% 


100.0% 


16.5% 


9 


742 


105 


26 


531 


48 





406 


1,858 


524 




39.9% 


5.7% 


1.4% 


28.6% 


2.6% 


0.0% 


21.9% 


100.0% 


28.2% 


10 


563 


42 


41 


252 


935 





705 


2,538 


442 




22.2% 


1.7% 


1.6% 


9.9% 


36.8% 


0.0% 


27.8% 


100.0% 


17.4% 


11 


323 


21 


24 


225 


22 





290 


905 


273 




35.7% 


2.3% 


2.7% 


24.9% 


2.4% 


0.0% 


32.0% 


100.0% 


30.2% 


12 


169 


2 


14 


83 


20 





232 


520 


159 




32.5% 


0.4% 


2.7% 


16.0% 


3.8% 


0.0% 


44.6% 


100.0% 


30.6% 


13 


151 


11 


28 


103 


24 





195 


512 


116 




29.5% 


2.1% 


5.5% 


20.1% 


4.7% 


0.0% 


38.1% 


100.0% 


22.7% 


14 


274 


29 


7 


192 


31 





81 


614 


307 




44.6% 


4.7% 


1.1% 


31.3% 


5.0% 


0.0% 


13.2% 


100.0% 


50.0% 


ISA 


563 


39 


20 


169 


6 





222 


1,019 


584 




55.3% 


3.8% 


2.0% 


16.6% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


21.8% 


100.0% 


57.3% 


15B 


52 


11 


8 


37 


17 





116 


241 


39 




21.6% 


4.6% 


3.3% 


15.4% 


7.1% 


0.0% 


48.1% 


100.0% 


16.2% 


16A 


119 


3 


16 


46 


12 





85 


281 


109 




42.3% 


1.1% 


5.7% 


16.4% 


4.3% 


0.0% 


30.2% 


100.0% 


38.8% 



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

159 



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

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



Prosecutorial 


Guilty Pleas 


Jury 
Trials 


DA Dismissal 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 


Other 


Total 
Dispositions 


Total 


District 


As 

Charged 


Lesser 

OfYense 


Without 
Leave 


With 
Leave 


Negotiated 
Pleas 


16B 


235 
33.1% 


1 
0.1% 


12 
1.7% 


23 
3.2% 


86 
12.1% 



0.0% 


354 
49.8% 


711 
100.0% 


66 
9.3% 


17A 


478 
43.2% 


57 
5.2% 


19 
1.7% 


232 
21.0% 


35 
3.2% 




0.0% 


285 
25.8% 


1,106 
100.0% 


453 
41.0% 


17B 


485 
52.2% 


25 
2.7% 


6 
0.6% 


113 
12.2% 


22 

2.4% 



0.0% 


278 
29.9% 


929 
100.0% 


299 

32.2% 


IS 


377 
40.9% 


28 
3.0% 


33 
3.6% 


136 

14.8% 


75 
8.1% 



0.0% 


272 
29.5% 


921 
100.0% 


345 

37.5% 


19A 


216 

17.1% 


28 
2.2% 


26 
2.1% 


400 
31.6% 


56 
4.4% 



0.0% 


540 
42.7% 


1,266 
100.0% 


198 
15.6% 


19B 


136 
19.7% 


10 

1.4% 


15 
2.2% 


245 
35.4% 


32 

4.6% 



0.0% 


254 
36.7% 


692 
100.0% 


106 
15.3% 


20 


647 

24.4% 


103 
3.9% 


20 
0.8% 


875 
33.0% 


23 
0.9% 



0.0% 


983 
37.1% 


2,651 
100.0% 


894 

33.7% 


21 


477 
34.5% 


49 
3.5% 


27 
2.0% 


252 
18.2% 


18 
1.3% 



0.0% 


560 

40.5% 


1,383 
100.0% 


355 
25.7% 


22 


361 

22.1% 


102 
6.2% 


22 

1.3% 


198 
12.1% 


47 
2.9% 



0.0% 


907 

55.4% 


1,637 
100.0% 


283 
17.3% 


23 


129 
21.5% 


6 
1.0% 


20 
3.3% 


56 
9.3% 


23 
3.8% 



0.0% 


367 
61.1% 


601 
100.0% 


39 
6.5% 


24 


67 
22.1% 


9 
3.0% 


33 
10.9% 


83 
27.4% 


2 
0.7% 



0.0% 


109 

36.0% 


303 
100.0% 


21 
6.9% 


25 


535 
20.7% 


117 
4.5% 


24 
0.9% 


689 
26.7% 


111 
4.3% 



0.0% 


1,103 
42.8% 


2,579 
100.0% 


489 
19.0% 


26 


71 
4.4% 


300 
18.4% 


73 
4.5% 


749 
45.9% 


30 
1.8% 



0.0% 


409 
25.1% 


1,632 
100.0% 


301 

18.4% 


27A 


212 
31.1% 


24 
3.5% 


22 
3.2% 


213 
31.2% 


44 
6.5% 



0.0% 


167 
24.5% 


682 
100.0% 


202 
29.6% 


27B 


90 

24.3% 


13 
3.5% 


27 
7.3% 


72 
19.5% 


25 
6.8% 



0.0% 


143 
38.6% 


370 
100.0% 


29 

7.8% 


28 


456 
49.6% 


3 

0.3% 


40 
4.3% 


127 
13.8% 


72 
7.8% 



0.0% 


222 
24.1% 


920 
100.0% 


333 
36.2% 


29 


479 

31.1% 


36 

2.3% 


33 
2.1% 


366 

23.8% 


105 
6.8% 



0.0% 


520 
33.8% 


1,539 
100.0% 


302 
19.6% 


30 


255 

31.2% 


27 
3.3% 


40 
4.9% 


204 
25.0% 


29 
3.5% 



0.0% 


262 
32.1% 


817 
100.0% 


190 

23.3% 


State Totals 


12,620 

31.9% 


1,645 
4.2% 


902 
2.3% 


8,981 
22.7% 


2,508 
6.3% 



0.0% 


12,920 
32.6% 


39,576 
100.0% 


9,929 
25.1% 


This table is 


provided b( 


xause prosecuti 


jrial districts 


are not coterminous with s 


uperior court districts. (5 


>ee the district ma 


ps in Part II.) 



160 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 











Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


District 1 






















Camden 


Fel 


4 





4 


2 








10 


119.4 


168.0 




Mis 


17 


2 


5 


6 


1 


2 


33 


142.6 


60.0 


Chowan 


Fel 


27 


11 


S 


48 


10 


132 


236 


620.2 


890.0 




Mis 


12 


2 


8 


10 


21 


45 


98 


682.3 


716.0 


Currituck 


Fel 


25 


5 


6 


7 


5 


1 


49 


182.4 


89.0 




Mis 


22 


1 


1 


3 


2 


4 


33 


248.0 


54.0 


Dare 


Fel 


58 


20 


10 


47 


7 


1 


143 


158.4 


109.0 




Mis 


48 


10 


12 


32 


19 





121 


186.1 


140.0 


Gates 


Fel 


20 


4 


35 


23 


1 





83 


146.6 


124.0 




Mis 


7 


5 


6 


2 





1 


21 


157.8 


104.0 


Pasquotank 


Fel 


55 


39 


21 


75 


42 


9 


241 


236.6 


186.0 




Mis 


77 


5 


16 


56 


26 


9 


189 


221.7 


146.0 


Perquimans 


Fel 


12 





4 


10 


1 


5 


32 


319.5 


181.0 




Mis 


11 


1 


10 


12 


7 


8 


49 


381.0 


221.0 


District Total 


s Fel 


201 


79 


88 


212 


66 


148 


794 


325.7 


194.0 






25.3% 


25.3% 


25.3% 


25.3% 


25.3% 


25.3% 


25.3% 








Mis 


194 


26 


58 


121 


76 


69 


544 


305.4 


161.0 






35.7% 


4.8% 


10.7% 


22.2% 


14.0% 


12.7% 


100.0% 






District 2 






















Beaufort 


Fel 


79 


39 


26 


49 


32 





225 


176.6 


116.0 




Mis 


49 


21 


21 


12 


2 





105 


112.9 


96.0 


Hyde 


Fel 


12 


9 


6 


5 


1 





33 


131.2 


95.0 




Mis 


1 


5 


5 


4 








15 


157.3 


133.0 


Martin 


Fel 


67 


19 


10 


21 





1 


118 


105.8 


76.0 




Mis 


}2 


10 


4 


11 


2 





59 


119.0 


78.0 


Tyrrell 


Fel 


13 

















13 


16.1 


5.0 




Mis 


19 











l 





20 


61.3 


63.0 


Washington 


Fel 


46 


1 


11 


1 


1 





60 


60.6 


21.5 




Mis 


25 


1 


8 











34 


69.6 


67.0 


District Totals Fel 


217 


68 


53 


76 


34 


1 


449 


134.5 


95.0 






48.3% 


15.1% 


11.8% 


16.9% 


7.6% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


126 


37 


38 


27 


5 





233 


106.6 


78.0 






54.1% 


15.9% 


16.3% 


11.6% 


2.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 3A 






















Pitt 


Fel 


277 


80 


271 


224 


78 


119 


1,049 


257.6 


161.0 






26.4% 


7.6% 


25.8% 


21.4% 


7.4% 


11.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


153 


56 


27 


89 


12 


5 


342 


143.4 


97.0 






44.7% 


16.4% 


7.9% 


26.0% 


3.5% 


1.5% 


100.0% 







161 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) Total Mean Median 







0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Pending 


Age (Days) 


Age (Da; 


District 3B 






















Carteret 


Fel 


57 


37 


59 


65 


3 


1 


222 


156.9 


134.0 




Mis 


4S 


9 


33 


20 


4 


2 


116 


151.3 


133.0 


Craven 


Fel 


149 


70 


37 


31 


32 


31 


350 


240.6 


95.0 




Mis 


75 


12 


17 


5 


6 


6 


121 


155.9 


68.0 


Pamlico 


Fel 


13 


51 


42 


41 


9 





156 


180.0 


146.0 




Mis 


8 


12 


8 


9 








37 


124.8 


113.0 


District Total: 


5 Fel 


219 


158 


138 


137 


44 


32 


728 


202.1 


105.0 






30.1% 


21.7% 


19.0% 


18.8% 


6.0% 


4.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


131 


33 


58 


34 


10 


8 


274 


149.7 


96.5 






47.8% 


12.0% 


21.2% 


12.4% 


3.6% 


2.9% 


100.0% 






District 4A 






















Duplin 


Fel 


70 





8 


2 








80 


46.2 


21.0 




Mis 


14 


1 


3 


3 








21 


93.7 


55.0 


Jones 


Fel 


162 


6 


6 


10 








184 


19.8 


0.0 




Mis 


11 








1 








12 


57.3 


25.5 


Sampson 


Fel 


41 


3 


3 


6 


1 





54 


94.7 


77.0 




Mis 


10 


2 


4 


1 


2 





19 


128.8 


77.0 


District Total: 


5 Fel 


273 


9 


17 


18 


1 





318 


39.2 


0.0 






85.8% 


2.8% 


5.3% 


5.7% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


35 


3 


7 


5 


2 





52 


98.2 


55.0 






67.3% 


5.8% 


13.5% 


9.6% 


3.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 4B 






















Onslow 


Fel 


495 


49 


107 


47 


7 





705 


77.0 


55.0 






70.2% 


7.0% 


15.2% 


6.7% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


141 


15 


23 


9 


2 





190 


73.8 


55.0 






74.2% 


7.9% 


12.1% 


4.7% 


1.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 5 






















New Hanover 


Fel 


411 


116 


161 


389 


111 


70 


1,258 


237.6 


158.0 




Mis 


224 


69 


174 


170 


88 


63 


788 


266.9 


179.0 


Pender 


Fel 


27 


22 


38 


19 


9 


12 


127 


284.0 


145.0 




Mis 


35 


18 


13 


11 


1 


9 


87 


245.8 


116.0 


District Total: 


iFel 


438 


138 


199 


408 


120 


82 


1,385 


241.9 


148.0 






31.6% 


10.0% 


14.4% 


29.5% 


8.7% 


5.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


259 


87 


187 


181 


89 


72 


875 


264.8 


169.0 






29.6% 


9.9% 


21.4% 


20.7% 


10.2% 


8.2% 


100.0% 






District 6A 






















Halifax 


Fel 


202 


65 


176 


138 


76 


1 


658 


165.0 


131.0 






30.7% 


9.9% 


26.7% 


21.0% 


11.6% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


85 


31 


35 


52 


23 


2 


228 


170.1 


120.0 






37.3% 


13.6% 


15.4% 


22.8% 


10.1% 


0.9% 


100.0% 







162 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 







0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Pending 


Age (Days) 


Age (Daj 


District 6B 






















Bertie 


Fel 


71 


7 


9 


15 








102 


92.0 


67.0 




Mis 


22 


12 


S 


2 


3 


9 


56 


297.3 


118.0 


Hertford 


Fel 


23 


24 


12 


24 


17 


5 


105 


241.3 


130.0 




Mis 


11 


7 


14 


39 


13 


6 


106 


249.6 


226.0 


Northampton 


Fel 


39 


9 


2 


21 


8 





79 


155.9 


97.0 




Mis 


34 


L3 


3 


8 


5 


1 


64 


138.9 


73.0 


District Total 


5 Fel 


133 


40 


23 


60 


25 


5 


286 


164.4 


104.0 






46.5% 


14.0% 


8.0% 


21.0% 


8.7% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


83 


32 


25 


49 


21 


16 


226 


230.1 


118.0 






36.7% 


14.2% 


11.1% 


21.7% 


9.3% 


7.1% 


100.0% 






District 7A 






















Nash 


Fel 


190 


45 


9 


34 


25 


48 


351 


225.3 


54.0 






54.1% 


12.8% 


2.6% 


9.7% 


7.1% 


13.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


131 


15 


3 


3 


8 


4 


164 


77.5 


20.0 






79.9% 


9.1% 


1.8% 


1.8% 


4.9% 


2.4% 


100.0% 






District 7B-C 






















Edgecombe 


Fel 


235 


3 


37 


39 


29 


134 


477 


342.1 


133.0 




Mis 


49 


15 


13 


20 


13 


148 


258 


628.5 


756.0 


Wilson 


Fel 


114 


81 


83 


142 


73 


36 


529 


261.3 


161.0 




Mis 


107 


42 


26 


28 


31 


39 


273 


330.4 


110.0 


District Totals Fel 


349 


84 


120 


181 


102 


170 


1,006 


299.6 


160.0 






34.7% 


8.3% 


11.9% 


18.0% 


10.1% 


16.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


156 


57 


39 


48 


44 


187 


531 


475.2 


211.0 






29.4% 


10.7% 


7.3% 


9.0% 


8.3% 


35.2% 


100.0% 






District 8A 






















Greene 


Fel 


14 


4 


22 


17 


4 





61 


193.1 


159.0 




Mis 


15 


6 


4 


3 


8 





36 


180.0 


103.0 


Lenoir 


Fel 


99 





39 


15 


2 





155 


95.4 


78.0 




Mis 


131 


26 


14 


17 


1 





189 


71.2 


32.0 


District Total 


sFel 


113 


4 


61 


32 


6 





216 


123.0 


83.0 






52.3% 


1.9% 


28.2% 


14.8% 


2.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


146 


32 


18 


20 


9 





225 


88.6 


32.0 






64.9% 


14.2% 


8.0% 


8.9% 


4.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 8B 






















Wayne 


Fel 


313 


103 


37 


41 


15 





509 


84.0 


57.0 






61.5% 


20.2% 


7.3% 


8.1% 


2.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


157 


43 


53 


71 


31 


3 


358 


159.5 


106.0 






43.9% 


12.0% 


14.8% 


19.8% 


8.7% 


0.8% 


100.0% 







163 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 











Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Medial 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Dai 


District 9 






















Franklin 


Fel 


100 


8 


96 


32 


5 


3 


244 


135.3 


138.0 




Mis 


84 


17 


14 


27 


19 


10 


171 


217.5 


104.0 


Granville 


Fel 


50 


11 


8 


15 


7 


2 


93 


154.7 


90.0 




Mis 


51 


11 


17 


40 


14 


3 


136 


201.6 


144.0 


Person 


Fel 


43 


8 


9 


14 


15 


4 


93 


210.7 


111.0 




Mis 


24 


8 


9 


23 


22 


11 


97 


319.6 


257.0 


Vance 


Fel 


222 


47 


79 


41 


63 


7 


459 


161.1 


97.0 




Mis 


148 


36 


39 


64 


87 


29 


403 


273.8 


144.0 


Warren 


Fel 


42 


24 


21 


44 


17 


2 


150 


204.4 


145.0 




Mis 


43 


10 


4 


15 


13 


21 


106 


397.5 


125.5 


District Total: 


5 Fel 


457 


98 


213 


146 


107 


18 


1,039 


165.1 


110.0 






44.0% 


9.4% 


20.5% 


14.1% 


10.3% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


350 


82 


83 


169 


155 


74 


913 


271.7 


134.0 






38.3% 


9.0% 


9.1% 


18.5% 


17.0% 


8.1% 


100.0% 






District 10A-D 






















Wake 


Fel 


1,062 


154 


344 


562 


231 


180 


2,533 


226.3 


131.0 






41.9% 


6.1% 


13.6% 


22.2% 


9.1% 


7.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


.286 


60 


60 


59 


42 


33 


540 


174.8 


77.0 






53.0% 


11.1% 


11.1% 


10.9% 


7.8% 


6.1% 


100.0% 






District 11 

Harnett 


Fel 


133 


31 


43 


56 


6 


7 


276 


141.3 


102.0 




Mis 


2X 


8 


14 


18 


3 


2 


73 


183.5 


134.0 


Johnston 


Fel 


149 


48 


53 


39 


3 


1 


293 


107.1 


90.0 




Mis 


53 


9 


10 


13 


5 


2 


92 


140.1 


70.0 


Lee 


Fel 


145 


39 


9 


3 


3 





199 


63.8 


55.0 




Mis 


32 


10 


5 


5 


1 





53 


84.3 


55.0 


District Total: 


5 Fel 


427 


118 


105 


98 


12 


8 


768 


108.2 


70.0 






55.6% 


15.4% 


13.7% 


12.8% 


1.6% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


113 


27 


29 


36 


9 


4 


218 


141.1 


89.0 






51.8% 


12.4% 


13.3% 


16.5% 


4.1% 


1.8% 


100.0% 






District 12A-C 






















Cumberland 


Fel 


805 


187 


232 


389 


193 


21 


1,827 


168.6 


110.0 






44.1% 


10.2% 


12.7% 


21.3% 


10.6% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


98 


26 


47 


44 


24 


7 


246 


177.1 


119.0 






39.8% 


10.6% 


19.1% 


17.9% 


9.8% 


2.8% 


100.0% 







164 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) Total Mean Median 







0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Pending 


Age (Days) 


Age (Daj 


District 13 






















Bladen 


Fel 


52 


27 


4S 


39 


131 





297 


249.8 


257.0 




Mis 


32 


9 


6 


16 








63 


111.6 


90.0 


Brunswick 


Fel 


122 


43 


21 


14 


11 


3 


214 


123.4 


70.0 




Mis 


34 


7 


6 


3 





2 


52 


108.4 


70.0 


Columbus 


Fel 


65 


41 


63 


24 


11 


2 


206 


140.9 


120.0 




Mis 


38 


4 


7 


6 


9 


2 


66 


148.5 


64.0 


District Total 


;Fel 


239 


111 


132 


77 


153 


5 


717 


180.8 


125.0 






33.3% 


15.5% 


18.4% 


10.7% 


21.3% 


0.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


104 


20 


19 


25 


9 


4 


181 


124.1 


70.0 






57.5% 


11.0% 


10.5% 


13.8% 


5.0% 


2.2% 


100.0% 






District 14A-B 






















Durham 


Fel 


490 


130 


234 


310 


231 


293 


1,688 


319.1 


179.0 






29.0% 


7.7% 


13.9% 


18.4% 


13.7% 


17.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


53 


14 


29 


62 


27 


13 


198 


249.7 


188.0 






26.8% 


7.1% 


14.6% 


31.3% 


13.6% 


6.6% 


100.0% 






District 15A 






















Alamance 


Fel 


528 


125 


106 


50 


30 





839 


93.9 


69.0 






62.9% 


14.9% 


12.6% 


6.0% 


3.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


83 


23 


26 


15 


7 


1 


155 


117.4 


81.0 






53.5% 


14.8% 


16.8% 


9.7% 


4.5% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






District 15B 






















Chatham 


Fel 


63 


20 


30 


31 


6 





150 


124.9 


104.0 




Mis 


19 


2 


3 


4 


1 





29 


110.6 


64.0 


Orange 


Fel 


172 


39 


40 


72 


15 


2 


340 


126.6 


78.0 


- 


Mis 


17 


4 


4 


3 


3 





31 


114.0 


83.0 


District Total 


5 Fel 


235 


59 


70 


103 


21 


2 


490 


126.1 


103.0 






48.0% 


12.0% 


14.3% 


21.0% 


4.3% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


36 


6 


7 


7 


4 





60 


112.4 


68.0 






60.0% 


10.0% 


11.7% 


11.7% 


6.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 16A 






















Hoke 


Fel 


64 


49 


47 


43 


29 


1 


233 


177.1 


140.0 




Mis 


46 


13 


7 


12 


10 





88 


135.7 


81.0 


Scotland 


Fel 


128 


43 


21 


36 


39 


3 


270 


175.1 


104.0 




Mis 


32 


19 


9 


6 


3 





69 


108.3 


104.0 


District Total 


sFel 


192 


92 


68 


79 


68 


4 


503 


176.0 


104.0 






38.2% 


18.3% 


13.5% 


15.7% 


13.5% 


0.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


78 


32 


16 


18 


13 





157 


123.7 


91.0 






49.7% 


20.4% 


10.2% 


11.5% 


8.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







165 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 







0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Pending 


Age (Days) 


Age (Day 


District 16B 






















Robeson 


Pel 


414 


409 


375 


561 


199 


13 


1,971 


198.2 


147.0 






21.0% 


20.8% 


19.0% 


28.5% 


10.1% 


0.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


187 


98 


94 


202 


198 


59 


838 


288.7 


235.5 






22.3% 


11.7% 


11.2% 


24.1% 


23.6% 


7.0% 


100.0% 






District 17A 






















Caswell 


Fel 


43 


3 


3 


2 








51 


60.2 


43.0 




Mis 


24 


7 


6 


2 








39 


74.6 


40.0 


Rockingham 


Fel 


329 


83 


109 


174 


43 


5 


743 


151.5 


116.0 




Mis 


163 


45 


70 


143 


21 


1 


443 


160.8 


124.0 


District Total; 


;Fel 


372 


86 


112 


176 


43 


5 


794 


145.7 


105.0 






46.9% 


10.8% 


14.1% 


22.2% 


5.4% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


187 


52 


76 


145 


21 


1 


482 


153.8 


124.0 






38.8% 


10.8% 


15.8% 


30.1% 


4.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 17B 






















Stokes 


Fel 


114 


23 


37 


25 


8 





207 


101.6 


70.0 




Mis 


64 


10 


10 


10 


3 


1 


98 


112.1 


63.0 


Surry 


Fel 


97 


32 


17 


21 


1 


4 


172 


112.5 


76.0 




Mis 


79 


31 


20 


6 


1 





137 


77.9 


61.0 


District Total: 


5 Fel 


211 


55 


54 


46 


9 


4 


379 


106.5 


76.0 






55.7% 


14.5% 


14.2% 


12.1% 


2.4% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


143 


41 


30 


16 


4 


1 


235 


92.2 


63.0 






60.9% 


17.4% 


12.8% 


6.8% 


1.7% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 18A-E 






















Guilford 


Fel 


934 


273 


366 


485 


219 


21 


2,298 


165.8 


119.0 






40.6% 


11.9% 


15.9% 


21.1% 


9.5% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


124 


30 


35 


64 


27 


2 


282 


163.9 


109.0 






44.0% 


10.6% 


12.4% 


22.7% 


9.6% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






District 19A 






















Cabarrus 


Fel 


261 


99 


81 


297 


82 





820 


171.9 


151.0 






31.8% 


12.1% 


9.9% 


36.2% 


10.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


138 


90 


41 


111 


46 





426 


168.4 


113.0 






32.4% 


21.1% 


9.6% 


26.1% 


10.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 19B 






















Montgomery 


Fel 


101 


23 


16 


31 


21 





192 


143.9 


84.0 




Mis 


49 


11 


16 


18 


5 





99 


135.0 


106.0 


Randolph 


Fel 


282 


64 


98 


140 


38 


9 


631 


159.0 


106.0 




Mis 


114 


27 


37 


43 


22 


7 


250 


160.1 


105.0 


District Total 


sFel 


383 


87 


114 


171 


59 


9 


823 


155.5 


104.0 






46.5% 


10.6% 


13.9% 


20.8% 


7.2% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


163 


38 


53 


61 


27 


7 


349 


153.0 


106.0 






46.7% 


10.9% 


15.2% 


17.5% 


7.7% 


2.0% 


100.0% 







166 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 











Ages of Pending Ca.< 


;es (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


District 19C 






















Rowan 


Fel 


170 


77 


109 


308 


112 


6 


782 


217.9 


209.0 






21.7% 


9.8% 


13.9% 


39.4% 


14.3% 


0.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


111 


2 


32 


59 


27 





231 


161.7 


123.0 






48.1% 


0.9% 


13.9% 


25.5% 


11.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 20A 






















Anson 


Fel 


97 


55 


26 


16 


7 





201 


111.1 


95.0 




Mis 


37 


15 


14 


10 


3 


1 


80 


123.0 


104.0 


Moore 


Fel 


171 


23 


19 


28 


16 


12 


269 


166.2 


62.0 




Mis 


77 


23 


2 


30 


19 


5 


156 


192.5 


91.0 


Richmond 


Fel 


152 


111 


19 


68 


28 





378 


135.5 


112.0 




Mis 


88 


43 


19 


34 


24 


1 


209 


153.5 


96.0 


District Totals Fel 


420 


189 


64 


112 


51 


12 


848 


139.5 


91.0 






49.5% 


22.3% 


7.5% 


13.2% 


6.0% 


1.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


202 


81 


35 


74 


46 


7 


445 


161.7 


96.0 






45.4% 


18.2% 


7.9% 


16.6% 


10.3% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






District 20B 






















Stanly 


Fel 


39 


32 


43 


26 


2 


3 


145 


158.9 


125.0 




Mis 


6-4 


9 


7 


16 


5 


1 


102 


124.2 


61.5 


Union 


Fel 


111 


8 


41 


28 


57 


9 


254 


242.2 


138.0 




Mis 


84 


6 


34 


39 


15 


23 


201 


324.2 


133.0 


District Totals Fel 


150 


40 


84 


54 


59 


12 


399 


211.9 


138.0 






37.6% 


10.0% 


21.1% 


13.5% 


14.8% 


3.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


148 


15 


41 


55 


20 


24 


303 


256.9 


97.0 






48.8% 


5.0% 


13.5% 


18.2% 


6.6% 


7.9% 


100.0% 






District 21A-D 






















Forsyth 


Fel 


391 


95 


47 


161 


41 


7 


742 


132.8 


81.0 






52.7% 


12.8% 


6.3% 


21.7% 


5.5% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


111 


18 


23 


52 


13 


6 


223 


143.9 


92.0 






49.8% 


8.1% 


10.3% 


23.3% 


5.8% 


2.7% 


100.0% 






District 22 






















Alexander 


Fel 


35 


15 


10 


21 


5 





86 


154.7 


105.0 




Mis 


76 


13 


22 


16 


2 





129 


109.6 


90.0 


Davidson 


Fel 


183 


59 


89 


99 


7 


1 


438 


125.7 


91.0 




Mis 


75 


23 


28 


9 


4 





139 


103.7 


83.0 


Davie 


Fel 


16 


15 


6 


12 


3 





52 


137.2 


119.0 




Mis 


24 


4 


5 


2 








35 


72.7 


53.0 


Iredell 


Fel 


209 


52 


52 


88 


19 


2 


422 


127.4 


91.0 




Mis 


113 


59 


52 


79 


9 





312 


140.8 


112.0 


District Totals Fel 


443 


141 


157 


220 


34 


3 


998 


129.5 


96.5 






44.4% 


14.1% 


15.7% 


22.0% 


3.4% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


288 


99 


107 


106 


15 





615 


122.0 


102.0 






46.8% 


16.1% 


17.4% 


17.2% 


2.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







167 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) Total Mean Median 







0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Pending 


Age (Days) 


Age (Da^ 


District 23 






















Alleghany 


Fel 


13 


2 


12 


10 


1 


2 


40 


191.9 


131.0 




Mis 


13 


1 


4 


8 


3 





29 


176.9 


134.0 


Ashe 


Fel 


14 


5 


14 


33 


5 





71 


204.3 


207.0 




Mis 


20 


10 


5 


22 


1 





58 


158.4 


109.0 


Wilkes 


Fel 


88 


8 


9 


27 


10 


6 


148 


177.9 


55.0 




Mis 


63 


6 


13 


12 


1 





95 


86.1 


54.0 


Yadkin 


Fel 


31 


7 


10 


18 


2 





68 


148.5 


116.0 




Mis 


23 


3 


6 


14 


9 





55 


171.6 


124.0 


District Total 


s Fel 


146 


22 


45 


88 


18 


8 


327 


179.2 


116.0 






44.6% 


6.7% 


13.8% 


26.9% 


5.5% 


2.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


119 


20 


28 


56 


14 





237 


134.7 


89.0 






50.2% 


8.4% 


11.8% 


23.6% 


5.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 24 






















Avery 


Fel 


26 





9 


8 


29 


1 


73 


248.1 


221.0 




Mis 


14 


2 


6 


2 


2 


2 


28 


181.7 


84.0 


Madison 


Fel 


12 


1 


2 


12 


5 


5 


37 


354.7 


231.0 




Mis 


11 


3 





2 


2 





18 


136.8 


83.5 


Mitchell 


Fel 


10 


5 


4 


11 


11 


2 


43 


283.6 


271.0 




Mis 


9 


5 





4 


3 


2 


23 


228.0 


106.0 


Watauga 


Fel 


66 


12 


12 


24 


51 


5 


170 


267.9 


165.5 




Mis 


58 


11 


30 


31 


16 


4 


150 


184.9 


123.0 


Yancey 


Fel 


4 


1 


27 


5 


2 


2 


41 


205.4 


140.0 




Mis 


2 


4 


5 


5 


2 





18 


186.9 


140.0 


District Total: 


s Fel 


118 


19 


54 


60 


98 


15 


364 


267.6 


162.0 






32.4% 


5.2% 


14.8% 


16.5% 


26.9% 


4.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


94 


25 


41 


44 


25 


8 


237 


185.2 


118.0 






39.7% 


10.5% 


17.3% 


18.6% 


10.5% 


3.4% 


100.0% 






District 25A 






















Burke 


Fel 


135 


18 


67 


174 


49 


23 


466 


228.9 


196.0 




Mis 


153 


52 


86 


140 


40 


5 


476 


182.3 


151.0 


Caldwell 


Fel 


172 


6-1 


105 


192 


57 


11 


601 


205.0 


160.0 




Mis 


78 


44 


48 


33 


15 


2 


220 


150.8 


109.0 


District Total: 


5 Fel 


307 


82 


172 


366 


106 


34 


1,067 


215.4 


172.0 






28.8% 


7.7% 


16.1% 


34.3% 


9.9% 


3.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


231 


96 


134 


173 


55 


7 


696 


172.3 


138.0 






33.2% 


13.8% 


19.3% 


24.9% 


7.9% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






District 25 B 






















Catawba 


Fel 


152 


155 


161 


319 


108 


11 


906 


212.0 


167.0 






16.8% 


17.1% 


17.8% 


35.2% 


11.9% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


227 


74 


83 


112 


40 


3 


539 


146.0 


102.0 






42.1% 


13.7% 


15.4% 


20.8% 


7.4% 


0.6% 


100.0% 







168 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 











Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


District 26A-C 






















Mecklenburg 


Fcl 


820 


229 


296 


342 


206 


59 


1,952 


184.9 


111.5 






42.0% 


11.7% 


15.2% 


17.5% 


10.6% 


3.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


419 


121 


243 


289 


257 


89 


1,418 


253.7 


156.5 






29.5% 


8.5% 


17.1% 


20.4% 


18.1% 


6.3% 


100.0% 






District 27 A 






















Gaston 


Fcl 


479 


175 


141 


169 


121 


68 


1,153 


195.1 


118.0 






41.5% 


15.2% 


12.2% 


14.7% 


10.5% 


5.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


139 


35 


67 


105 


28 


5 


379 


178.1 


139.0 






36.7% 


9.2% 


17.7% 


27.7% 


7.4% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






District 27B 






















Cleveland 


Fel 


164 


33 


57 


85 


113 


32 


484 


263.4 


155.0 




Mis 


60 


17 


17 


28 


28 


15 


165 


285.1 


141.0 


Lincoln 


Fel 


184 


37 


25 


74 


66 


12 


398 


200.4 


97.0 




Mis 


54 


7 


1 


6 


27 


4 


99 


228.0 


89.0 


District Total 


5 Fel 


348 


70 


82 


159 


179 


44 


882 


235.0 


124.0 






39.5% 


7.9% 


9.3% 


18.0% 


20.3% 


5.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


114 


24 


18 


34 


55 


19 


264 


263.6 


109.0 






43.2% 


9.1% 


6.8% 


12.9% 


20.8% 


7.2% 


100.0% 






District 28 






















Buncombe 


Fcl 


301 


56 


50 


41 


31 


9 


488 


119.3 


61.0 






61.7% 


11.5% 


10.2% 


8.4% 


6.4% 


1.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


78 


23 


10 


11 


4 


1 


127 


97.1 


67.0 






61.4% 


18.1% 


7.9% 


8.7% 


3.1% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 29 






















Henderson 


Fcl 


84 


93 


71 


69 


46 


23 


386 


226.5 


147.0 




Mis 


68 


37 


29 


32 


22 


1 


189 


171.7 


116.0 


McDowell 


Fel 


38 


37 


12 


58 


33 


19 


197 


298.3 


221.0 




Mis 


71 


19 


18 


16 


22 


24 


170 


301.0 


107.5 


Polk 


Fel 


11 


2 


25 


10 


44 


12 


104 


400.5 


383.0 




Mis 


17 


4 


4 


16 


14 


3 


58 


268.3 


213.0 


Rutherford 


Fel 


94 


34 


118 


96 


55 


12 


409 


216.6 


134.0 




Mis 


150 


56 


68 


100 


37 


1 


412 


165.6 


120.0 


Transylvania 


Fcl 


53 


10 


63 


42 


7 


17 


192 


258.8 


146.0 




Mis 


18 





14 


7 


1 


9 


49 


291.5 


146.0 


District Total 


sFel 


280 


176 


289 


275 


185 


83 


1,288 


253.2 


155.0 






21.7% 


13.7% 


22.4% 


21.4% 


14.4% 


6.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


324 


116 


133 


171 


96 


38 


878 


206.9 


119.5 






36.9% 


13.2% 


15.1% 


19.5% 


10.9% 


4.3% 


100.0% 







169 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 











Ages of 


Pending Cases 


; (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


District 30A 






















Cherokee 


Fel 


27 


5 


16 


40 


2 


2 


92 


184.0 


153.0 




Mis 


27 


1 


1 


3 


1 





33 


74.5 


46.0 


Clay 


Fel 


5 


2 


7 


3 








17 


138.1 


126.0 




Mis 


11 


1 


5 


1 








18 


95.7 


77.0 


Graham 


Fel 


4 


2 


5 


118 


2 





131 


212.6 


208.0 




Mis 


11 





9 


6 








26 


130.0 


132.0 


Macon 


Fel 


21 





27 


28 


2 





78 


167.6 


148.0 




Mis 


9 


3 


9 


2 


1 





24 


121.4 


120.5 


Swain 


Fel 


5 


5 


1 


6 








17 


127.4 


105.0 




Mis 


5 





2 


3 








10 


104.7 


93.0 


District Total 


s Fel 


62 


14 


56 


195 


6 


2 


335 


186.1 


208.0 






18.5% 


4.2% 


16.7% 


58.2% 


1.8% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


63 


5 


26 


15 


2 





111 


103.8 


81.0 






56.8% 


4.5% 


23.4% 


13.5% 


1.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 30B 






















Haywood 


Fel 


65 


1 


48 


21 


1 





136 


123.0 


134.0 




Mis 


21 


6 


8 


2 





1 


38 


104.2 


73.0 


Jackson 


Fel 


6 





12 


26 


4 





48 


227.7 


186.0 




Mis 


15 


2 


10 


13 








40 


135.6 


140.0 


District Total 


sFel 


71 


1 


60 


47 


5 





184 


150.3 


146.5 






38.6% 


0.5% 


32.6% 


25.5% 


2.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


36 


8 


18 


15 





1 


78 


120.3 


104.0 






46.2% 


10.3% 


23.1% 


19.2% 


0.0% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


Fel 


15,088 


4,546 


5,772 


8,074 


3,616 


1,562 


38,658 


191.9 


119.0 






39.0% 


11.8% 


14.9% 


20.9% 


9.4% 


4.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


6,644 


1,868 


2,255 


3,114 


1,642 


780 


16,303 


201.6 


116.0 






40.8% 


11.5% 


13.8% 


19.1% 


10.1% 


4.8% 


100.0% 







170 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Prosecutorial Ages of Pending Cases (Days) Total Mean Median 

District 0-90 91-120 121-180 181-365 366-730 >730 Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 

1 Fel 201 79 88 212 66 148 794 325.7 194.0 

25.3% 9.9% 11.1% 26.7% 8.3% 18.6% 100.0% 

Mis 194 26 58 121 76 69 544 305.4 161.0 

35.7% 4.8% 10.7% 22.2% 14.0% 12.7% 100.0% 

2 Fel 217 68 53 76 34 1 449 134.5 95.0 

48.3% 15.1% 11.8% 16.9% 7.6% 0.2% 100.0% 

Mis 126 37 38 27 5 233 106.6 78.0 

54.1% 15.9% 16.3% 11.6% 2.1% 0.0% 100.0% 

3A Fel 277 80 271 224 78 119 1,049 257.6 161.0 

26.4% 7.6% 25.8% 21.4% 7.4% 11.3% 100.0% 

Mis 153 56 27 89 12 5 342 143.4 97.0 

44.7% 16.4% 7.9% 26.0% 3.5% 1.5% 100.0% 

3B Fel 219 158 138 137 44 32 728 202.1 105.0 

30.1% 21.7% 19.0% 18.8% 6.0% 4.4% 100.0% 

Mis 131 33 58 34 10 8 274 149.7 96.5 

47.8% 12.0% 21.2% 12.4% 3.6% 2.9% 100.0% 

4 Fel 768 58 124 65 8 1,023 65.2 39.0 

75.1% 5.7% 12.1% 6.4% 0.8% 0.0% 100.0% 

Mis 176 18 30 14 4 242 79.0 55.0 

72.7% 7.4% 12.4% 5.8% 1.7% 0.0% 100.0% 

5 Fel 438 138 199 408 120 82 1,385 241.9 148.0 

31.6% 10.0% 14.4% 29.5% 8.7% 5.9% 100.0% 

Mis 259 87 187 181 89 72 875 264.8 169.0 

29.6% 9.9% 21.4% 20.7% 10.2% 8.2% 100.0% 

6A Fel 202 65 176 138 76 1 658 165.0 131.0 

30.7% 9.9% 26.7% 21.0% 11.6% 0.2% 100.0% 

Mis 85 31 35 52 23 2 228 170.1 120.0 

37.3% 13.6% 15.4% 22.8% 10.1% 0.9% 100.0% 

6B Fel 133 40 23 60 25 5 286 164.4 104.0 

46.5% 14.0% 8.0% 21.0% 8.7% 1.7% 100.0% 

Mis 83 32 25 49 21 16 226 230.1 118.0 

36.7% 14.2% 11.1% 21.7% 9.3% 7.1% 100.0% 

7 Fel 539 129 129 215 127 218 1,357 280.4 133.0 

39.7% 9.5% 9.5% 15.8% 9.4% 16.1% 100.0% 

Mis 287 72 42 51 52 191 695 381.4 119.0 

41.3% 10.4% 6.0% 7.3% 7.5% 27.5% 100.0% 

8 Fel 426 107 98 73 21 725 95.6 83.0 

58.8% 14.8% 13.5% 10.1% 2.9% 0.0% 100.0% 

Mis 303 75 71 91 40 3 583 132.2 84.0 

52.0% 12.9% 12.2% 15.6% 6.9% 0.5% 100.0% 

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

171 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 



Prosecutorial 








Ages of Pending Cases 


(Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days; 


9 


Fel 


457 


98 


213 


146 


107 


18 


1,039 


165.1 


110.0 






44.0% 


9.4% 


20.5% 


14.1% 


10.3% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


350 


82 


83 


169 


155 


74 


913 


271.7 


134.0 






38.3% 


9.0% 


9.1% 


18.5% 


17.0% 


8.1% 


100.0% 






10 


Fcl 


1,062 


154 


344 


562 


231 


180 


2,533 


226.3 


131.0 






41.9% 


6.1% 


13.6% 


22.2% 


9.1% 


7.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


286 


60 


60 


59 


42 


33 


540 


174.8 


77.0 






53.0% 


11.1% 


11.1% 


10.9% 


7.8% 


6.1% 


100.0% 






11 


Fcl 


427 


118 


105 


98 


12 


8 


768 


108.2 


70.0 






55.6% 


15.4% 


13.7% 


12.8% 


1.6% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


113 


27 


29 


36 


9 


4 


218 


141.1 


89.0 






51.8% 


12.4% 


13.3% 


16.5% 


4.1% 


1.8% 


100.0% 






12 


Fel 


805 


187 


232 


389 


193 


21 


1,827 


168.6 


110.0 






44.1% 


10.2% 


12.7% 


21.3% 


10.6% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








M i s 


98 


26 


47 


44 


24 


7 


246 


177.1 


119.0 






39.8% 


10.6% 


19.1% 


17.9% 


9.8% 


2.8% 


100.0% 






13 


Fel 


239 


111 


132 


77 


153 


5 


717 


180.8 


125.0 






33.3% 


15.5% 


18.4% 


10.7% 


21.3% 


0.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


104 


20 


19 


25 


9 


4 


181 


124.1 


70.0 






57.5% 


11.0% 


10.5% 


13.8% 


5.0% 


2.2% 


100.0% 






14 


Fcl 


490 


130 


234 


310 


231 


293 


1,688 


319.1 


179.0 






29.0% 


7.7% 


13.9% 


18.4% 


13.7% 


17.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


53 


14 


29 


62 


27 


13 


198 


249.7 


188.0 






26.8% 


7.1% 


14.6% 


31.3% 


13.6% 


6.6% 


100.0% 






15A 


Fel 


528 


125 


106 


50 


30 





839 


93.9 


69.0 






62.9% 


14.9% 


12.6% 


6.0% 


3.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


83 


23 


26 


15 


7 


1 


155 


117.4 


81.0 






53.5% 


14.8% 


16.8% 


9.7% 


4.5% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






15B 


Fel 


235 


59 


70 


103 


21 


2 


490 


126.1 


103.0 






48.0% 


12.0% 


14.3% 


21.0% 


4.3% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


36 


6 


7 


7 


4 





60 


112.4 


68.0 






60.0% 


10.0% 


11.7% 


11.7% 


6.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






16A 


Fel 


192 


92 


68 


79 


68 


4 


503 


176.0 


104.0 






38.2% 


18.3% 


13.5% 


15.7% 


13.5% 


0.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


78 


32 


16 


18 


13 





157 


123.7 


91.0 






49.7% 


20.4% 


10.2% 


11.5% 


8.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






16B 


Fcl 


414 


409 


375 


561 


199 


13 


1,971 


198.2 


147.0 






21.0% 


20.8% 


19.0% 


28.5% 


10.1% 


0.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


187 


98 


94 


202 


198 


59 


838 


288.7 


235.5 






22.3% 


11.7% 


11.2% 


24.1% 


23.6% 


7.0% 


100.0% 







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

172 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 



Prosecutorial 








Ages of Pending Cases 


i (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


17A 


Fel 


372 


86 


112 


176 


43 


5 


794 


145.7 


105.0 






46.9% 


10.8% 


14.1% 


22.2% 


5.4% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


187 


52 


76 


145 


21 


1 


482 


153.8 


124.0 






38.8% 


10.8% 


15.8% 


30.1% 


4.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






17B 


Fel 


211 


55 


54 


46 


9 


4 


379 


106.5 


76.0 






55.7% 


14.5% 


14.2% 


12.1% 


2.4% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


143 


41 


30 


16 


4 


1 


235 


92.2 


63.0 






60.9% 


17.4% 


12.8% 


6.8% 


1.7% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






18 


Fel 


934 


273 


366 


485 


219 


21 


2,298 


165.8 


119.0 






40.6% 


11.9% 


15.9% 


21.1% 


9.5% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


124 


30 


35 


64 


27 


2 


282 


163.9 


109.0 




- 


44.0% 


10.6% 


12.4% 


22.7% 


9.6% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






19A 


Fel 


431 


176 


190 


605 


194 


6 


1,602 


194.3 


182.0 






26.9% 


11.0% 


11.9% 


37.8% 


12.1% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


249 


92 


73 


170 


73 





657 


166.1 


113.0 






37.9% 


14.0% 


11.1% 


25.9% 


11.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






19B 


Fel 


383 


87 


114 


171 


59 


9 


823 


155.5 


104.0 






46.5% 


10.6% 


13.9% 


20.8% 


7.2% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


163 


38 


53 


61 


27 


7 


349 


153.0 


106.0 






46.7% 


10.9% 


15.2% 


17.5% 


7.7% 


2.0% 


100.0% 






20 


Fel 


570 


229 


148 


166 


110 


24 


1,247 


162.7 


97.0 






45.7% 


18.4% 


11.9% 


13.3% 


8.8% 


1.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


350 


96 


76 


129 


66 


31 


748 


200.3 


96.0 






46.8% 


12.8% 


10.2% 


17.2% 


8.8% 


4.1% 


100.0% 






21 


Fel 


391 


95 


47 


161 


41 


7 


742 


132.8 


81.0 






52.7% 


12.8% 


6.3% 


21.7% 


5.5% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


111 


18 


23 


52 


13 


6 


223 


143.9 


92.0 






49.8% 


8.1% 


10.3% 


23.3% 


5.8% 


2.7% 


100.0% 






22 


Fel 


443 


141 


157 


220 


34 


3 


998 


129.5 


96.5 






44.4% 


14.1% 


15.7% 


22.0% 


3.4% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


288 


99 


107 


106 


15 





615 


122.0 


102.0 






46.8% 


16.1% 


17.4% 


17.2% 


2.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






23 


Fel 


146 


22 


45 


88 


18 


8 


327 


179.2 


116.0 






44.6% 


6.7% 


13.8% 


26.9% 


5.5% 


2.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


119 


20 


28 


56 


14 





237 


134.7 


89.0 






50.2% 


8.4% 


11.8% 


23.6% 


5.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







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

173 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 



Prosecutorial 








Ages of Pending Cases 


: (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 


District 


0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


24 


Fel 


118 


19 


54 


60 


98 


15 


364 


267.6 


162.0 






32.4% 


5.2% 


14.8% 


16.5% 


26.9% 


4.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


94 


25 


41 


44 


25 


8 


237 


185.2 


118.0 






39.7% 


10.5% 


17.3% 


18.6% 


10.5% 


3.4% 


100.0% 






25 


Fel 


459 


237 


333 


685 


214 


45 


1,973 


213.8 


169.0 






23.3% 


12.0% 


16.9% 


34.7% 


10.8% 


2.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


458 


170 


217 


285 


95 


10 


1,235 


160.8 


120.0 






37.1% 


13.8% 


17.6% 


23.1% 


7.7% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






26 


Fel 


820 


229 


296 


342 


206 


59 


1,952 


184.9 


111.5 






42.0% 


11.7% 


15.2% 


17.5% 


10.6% 


3.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


419 


121 


243 


289 


257 


89 


1,418 


253.7 


156.5 






29.5% 


8.5% 


17.1% 


20.4% 


18.1% 


6.3% 


100.0% 






27A 


Fel 


479 


175 


141 


169 


121 


68 


1,153 


195.1 


118.0 






41.5% 


15.2% 


12.2% 


14.7% 


10.5% 


5.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


139 


35 


67 


105 


28 


5 


379 


178.1 


139.0 






36.7% 


9.2% 


17.7% 


27.7% 


7.4% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






27B 


Fel 


348 


70 


82 


159 


179 


44 


882 


235.0 


124.0 






39.5% 


7.9% 


9.3% 


18.0% 


20.3% 


5.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


114 


24 


18 


34 


55 


19 


264 


263.6 


109.0 






43.2% 


9.1% 


6.8% 


12.9% 


20.8% 


7.2% 


100.0% 






28 


Fel 


301 


56 


50 


41 


31 


9 


488 


119.3 


61.0 






61.7% 


11.5% 


10.2% 


8.4% 


6.4% 


1.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


78 


23 


10 


11 


4 


1 


127 


97.1 


67.0 






61.4% 


18.1% 


7.9% 


8.7% 


3.1% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






29 


Fel 


280 


176 


289 


275 


185 


83 


1,288 


253.2 


155.0 






21.7% 


13.7% 


22.4% 


21.4% 


14.4% 


6.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


324 


116 


133 


171 


96 


38 


878 


206.9 


119.5 






36.9% 


13.2% 


15.1% 


19.5% 


10.9% 


4.3% 


100.0% 






30 


Fel 


133 


15 


116 


242 


11 


2 


519 


173.4 


167.0 






25.6% 


2.9% 


22.4% 


46.6% 


2.1% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


99 


13 


44 


30 


2 


1 


189 


110.6 


82.0 






52.4% 


6.9% 


23.3% 


15.9% 


1.1% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


Fel 


15,088 


4,546 


5,772 


8,074 


3,616 


1,562 


38,658 


191.9 


119.0 






39.0% 


1 1 .8% 


14.9% 


20.9% 


9.4% 


4.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


6,644 


1,868 


2,255 


3,114 


1,642 


780 


16,303 


201.6 


116.0 






40.8% 


11.5% 


13.8% 


19.1% 


10.1% 


4.8% 


100.0% 







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

174 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 











Ages of Di 


sposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


District 1 






















Camden 


Fel 


5 


10 


1 


1 


3 





20 


182.2 


97.5 




Mis 


18 


1 


3 


6 


2 


3 


33 


188.4 


73.0 


Chowan 


Fel 


41 


14 


17 


28 


5 





105 


148.4 


119.0 




Mis 


40 


8 


19 


19 


9 


1 


96 


154.9 


120.5 


Currituck 


Fel 


72 


11 


56 


39 


15 





193 


156.2 


130.0 




Mis 


54 


5 


19 


26 


15 


3 


122 


185.2 


129.5 


Dare 


Fel 


93 


28 


91 


89 


48 


11 


360 


215.5 


157.0 




Mis 


124 


53 


79 


100 


10 


4 


379 


166.1 


132.0 


Gates 


Fel 


8 


12 


19 


14 


4 


1 


58 


167.0 


139.0 




Mis 


26 


9 


7 


13 


6 


2 


63 


169.8 


114.0 


Pasquotank 


Fel 


130 


42 


78 


104 


37 


15 


406 


200.8 


144.0 




Mis 


93 


31 


59 


71 


22 


5 


281 


175.9 


136.0 


Perquimans 


Fel 


11 


6 


23 


22 


18 


8 


88 


314.2 


222.5 




Mis 


52 


10 


8 


36 


9 


1 


116 


155.6 


116.0 


District Totals Fel 


360 


123 


285 


297 


130 


35 


1,230 


199.9 


145.0 






29.3% 


10.0% 


23.2% 


24.1% 


10.6% 


2.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


407 


117 


194 


271 


82 


19 


1,090 


169.5 


128.0 






37.3% 


10.7% 


17.8% 


24.9% 


7.5% 


1.7% 


100.0% 






District 2 






















Beaufort 


Fel 


244 


64 


74 


107 


36 





525 


139.7 


103.0 




Mis 


221 


66 


90 


106 


9 





492 


119.4 


102.5 


Hyde 


Fel 


21 


5 


13 


9 


2 





50 


132.9 


111.0 




Mis 


18 


5 


5 


7 








35 


103.4 


71.0 


Martin 


Fel 


203 


78 


47 


44 


10 





382 


111.4 


85.0 




Mis 


95 


38 


34 


36 


11 





214 


129.1 


97.0 


Tyrrell 


Fel 


19 


6 


11 


10 








46 


121.1 


117.5 




Mis 


30 


14 


9 


14 


2 





69 


117.9 


98.0 


Washington 


Fel 


106 


10 


41 


69 


26 





252 


158.9 


146.5 




Mis 


63 


5 


34 


28 


15 





145 


152.4 


125.0 


District Totals Fel 


593 


163 


186 


239 


74 





1,255 


134.0 


98.0 






47.3% 


13.0% 


14.8% 


19.0% 


5.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


427 


128 


172 


191 


37 





955 


125.9 


103.0 






44.7% 


13.4% 


18.0% 


20.0% 


3.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 3A 






















Pitt 


Fel 


683 


272 


376 


536 


221 


25 


2,113 


173.9 


128.0 






32.3% 


12.9% 


17.8% 


25.4% 


10.5% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,529 


154 


117 


105 


19 


4 


1.928 


69.6 


53.0 






79.3% 


8.0% 


6.1% 


5.4% 


1.0% 


0.2% 


100.0% 







175 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 











Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Day? 


District 3B 






















Carteret 


Fel 


337 


108 


81 


48 


5 


2 


581 


95.5 


86.0 




Mis 


215 


36 


23 


37 


9 





320 


87.0 


60.5 


Craven 


Fel 


720 


96 


115 


81 


42 


14 


1,068 


106.2 


62.5 




Mis 


331 


32 


34 


18 


3 


2 


420 


68.9 


51.0 


Pamlico 


Fel 


89 


13 


8 


10 


6 





126 


87.8 


89.5 




Mis 


18 


2 


1 


8 


3 





32 


129.1 


89.5 


District Totals Fel 


1,146 


217 


204 


139 


53 


16 


1,775 


101.4 


68.0 






64.6% 


12.2% 


11.5% 


7.8% 


3.0% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


564 


70 


58 


63 


15 


2 


772 


78.9 


56.0 






73.1% 


9.1% 


7.5% 


8.2% 


1.9% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 4A 






















Duplin 


Fel 


506 


46 


63 


34 


2 





651 


60.5 


35.0 




Mis 


77 


5 


9 


10 


1 





102 


73.3 


43.0 


Jones 


Fel 


52 


4 


1 


5 





1 


63 


56.9 


23.0 




Mis 


23 


4 





3 








30 


56.6 


23.0 


Sampson 


Fel 


455 


41 


60 


53 





1 


610 


75.2 


49.0 




Mis 


122 


17 


7 


11 








157 


64.0 


47.0 


District Totals Fel 


1,013 


91 


124 


92 


2 


2 


1,324 


67.1 


45.0 






76.5% 


6.9% 


9.4% 


6.9% 


0.2% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


222 


26 


16 


24 


1 





289 


66.5 


46.0 






76.8% 


9.0% 


5.5% 


8.3% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 4B 






















Onslow 


Fel 


1,027 


147 


157 


199 


33 


1 


1,564 


90.8 


59.0 






65.7% 


9.4% 


10.0% 


12.7% 


2.1% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


238 


38 


45 


58 


10 





389 


98.6 


64.0 






61.2% 


9.8% 


11.6% 


14.9% 


2.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 5 






















New Hanover 


Fel 


1,291 


398 


230 


306 


61 


4 


2,290 


106.7 


81.0 




Mis 


843 


171 


139 


122 


49 


2 


1,326 


94.3 


61.0 


Pender 


Fel 


137 


32 


52 


43 


10 


1 


275 


126.8 


92.0 




Mis 


64 


11 


20 


24 


3 





122 


111.5 


87.0 


District Total 


s Fel 


1,428 


430 


282 


349 


71 


5 


2,565 


108.9 


82.0 






55.7% 


16.8% 


11.0% 


13.6% 


2.8% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


907 


182 


159 


146 


52 


2 


1,448 


95.7 


62.0 






62.6% 


12.6% 


11.0% 


10.1% 


3.6% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 6A 






















Halifax 


Fel 


313 


114 


193 


193 


65 


10 


888 


168.0 


137.5 






35.2% 


12.8% 


21.7% 


21.7% 


7.3% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


142 


23 


73 


86 


63 


11 


398 


211.0 


141.0 






35.7% 


5.8% 


18.3% 


21.6% 


15.8% 


2.8% 


100.0% 







176 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 











Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


District 6B 






















Bertie 


Fel 


234 


11 


9 


12 


3 





269 


46.8 


31.0 




Mis 


51 


5 


13 


7 


4 





80 


101.7 


47.5 


Hertford 


Fel 


274 


81 


51 


45 


13 





464 


96.6 


67.0 




Mis 


73 


25 


24 


25 


9 


1 


157 


132.7 


96.0 


Northampton 


Fel 


124 


19 


38 


5 


8 


9 


203 


123.6 


78.0 




Mis 


64 


9 


8 


8 


3 


3 


95 


112.3 


47.0 


District Totals Fel 


632 


111 


98 


62 


24 


9 


936 


88.2 


52.0 






67.5% 


11.9% 


10.5% 


6.6% 


2.6% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


188 


39 


45 


40 


16 


4 


332 


119.4 


72.5 






56.6% 


11.7% 


13.6% 


12.0% 


4.8% 


1.2% 


100.0% 






District 7A 






















Nash 


Fel 


863 


108 


132 


146 


50 





1,299 


98.0 


57.0 






66.4% 


8.3% 


10.2% 


11.2% 


3.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


263 


25 


30 


34 


5 


5 


362 


92.3 


55.0 






72.7% 


6.9% 


8.3% 


9.4% 


1.4% 


1.4% 


100.0% 






District 7B-C 






















Edgecombe 


Fel 


783 


58 


52 


37 


4 


29 


963 


79.6 


34.0 




Mis 


184 


32 


6 


13 


7 


2 


244 


76.7 


42.0 


Wilson 


Fel 


505 


177 


84 


133 


34 


22 


955 


129.8 


84.0 




Mis 


189 


26 


25 


31 


19 


3 


293 


119.5 


63.0 


District Totals Fel 


1,288 


235 


136 


170 


38 


51 


1,918 


104.6 


50.0 






67.2% 


12.3% 


7.1% 


8.9% 


2.0% 


2.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


373 


58 


31 


44 


26 


5 


537 


100.0 


52.0 






69.5% 


10.8% 


5.8% 


8.2% 


4.8% 


0.9% 


100.0% 






District 8A 






















Greene 


Fel 


75 


23 


22 


21 


9 





150 


123.9 


86.5 




Mis 


66 


8 


10 


13 


4 





101 


92.5 


59.0 


Lenoir 


Fel 


545 


52 


46 


89 


37 


7 


776 


95.1 


42.0 




Mis 


464 


57 


89 


87 


27 


1 


725 


99.4 


63.0 


District Totals Fel 


620 


75 


68 


110 


46 


7 


926 


99.7 


53.0 






67.0% 


8.1% 


7.3% 


11.9% 


5.0% 


0.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


530 


65 


99 


100 


31 


1 


826 


98.5 


61.5 






64.2% 


7.9% 


12.0% 


12.1% 


3.8% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 8B 






















Wayne 


Fel 


528 


99 


114 


148 


35 


12 


936 


119.3 


71.0 






56.4% 


10.6% 


12.2% 


15.8% 


3.7% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


505 


108 


182 


161 


61 


6 


1,023 


127.3 


93.0 






49.4% 


10.6% 


17.8% 


15.7% 


6.0% 


0.6% 


100.0% 







177 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 











Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


District 9 






















Franklin 


Fel 


242 


63 


85 


25 


25 


3 


443 


121.2 


90.0 




Mis 


194 


38 


50 


30 


18 


11 


341 


145.0 


82.0 


Granville 


Fel 


291 


129 


68 


58 


8 


2 


556 


106.4 


84.0 




Mis 


179 


45 


51 


72 


19 


7 


373 


145.1 


97.0 


Person 


Fel 


248 


104 


81 


54 


31 


32 


550 


178.8 


96.5 




Mis 


217 


54 


40 


55 


26 


17 


409 


164.4 


79.0 


Vance 


Fel 


411 


167 


134 


64 


27 


18 


821 


128.2 


90.0 




Mis 


316 


80 


84 


51 


19 


16 


566 


127.9 


77.0 


Warren 


Fel 


139 


41 


37 


63 


6 


2 


288 


132.2 


95.0 




Mis 


74 


16 


22 


35 


17 


5 


169 


186.6 


110.0 


District Totals Fel 


1,331 


504 


405 


264 


97 


57 


2,658 


133.4 


90.0 






50.1% 


19.0% 


15.2% 


9.9% 


3.6% 


2.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


980 


233 


247 


243 


99 


56 


1,858 


147.9 


85.0 






52.7% 


12.5% 


13.3% 


13.1% 


5.3% 


3.0% 


100.0% 






District 10A-D 






















Wake 


Fel 


2,658 


654 


591 


714 


285 


102 


5,004 


140.4 


83.0 






53.1% 


13.1% 


11.8% 


14.3% 


5.7% 


2.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


2,199 


93 


80 


115 


44 


7 


2,538 


58.3 


32.0 






86.6% 


3.7% 


3.2% 


4.5% 


1.7% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 11 






















Harnett 


Fel 


310 


75 


77 


99 


9 


2 


572 


122.2 


80.0 




Mis 


125 


31 


11 


10 


7 


1 


185 


90.9 


61.0 


Johnston 


Fel 


443 


90 


78 


113 


26 


7 


757 


117.1 


76.0 




Mis 


184 


42 


56 


75 


4 


1 


362 


112.4 


85.0 


Lee 


Fel 


421 


67 


51 


39 


12 


1 


591 


83.7 


57.0 




Mis 


232 


28 


56 


40 


2 





358 


87.8 


69.5 


District Totals Fel 


1,174 


232 


206 


251 


47 


10 


1,920 


108.4 


75.0 






61.1% 


12.1% 


10.7% 


13.1% 


2.4% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


541 


101 


123 


125 


13 


2 


905 


98.3 


70.0 






59.8% 


11.2% 


13.6% 


13.8% 


1.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 12A-C 






















Cumberland 


Fel 


1,194 


231 


387 


508 


194 


44 


2,558 


154.8 


100.0 






46.7% 


9.0% 


15.1% 


19.9% 


7.6% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


333 


35 


53 


53 


36 


10 


520 


116.3 


59.0 






64.0% 


6.7% 


10.2% 


10.2% 


6.9% 


1.9% 


100.0% 







178 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) Total Mean Median 







0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Disposed 


Age (Days) 


Age (Day 


District 13 






















Bladen 


Fel 


216 


32 


70 


54 


14 


1 


387 


113.4 


89.0 




Mis 


85 


21 


28 


43 


7 


1 


185 


141.4 


98.0 


Brunswick 


Fel 


136 


79 


103 


164 


10 


11 


503 


166.2 


126.0 




Mis 


74 


21 


31 


33 


5 


1 


165 


132.0 


101.0 


Columbus 


Fel 


89 


40 


52 


56 


22 


2 


261 


167.8 


123.0 




Mis 


82 


16 


29 


24 


11 





162 


129.9 


90.0 


District Totals Fel 


441 


151 


225 


274 


46 


14 


1,151 


148.8 


113.0 






38.3% 


13.1% 


19.5% 


23.8% 


4.0% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


241 


58 


88 


100 


23 


2 


512 


134.8 


98.0 






47.1% 


11.3% 


17.2% 


19.5% 


4.5% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 14A-B 






















Durham 


Fel 


766 


209 


254 


501 


1,188 


138 


3,056 


334.1 


279.0 






25.1% 


6.8% 


8.3% 


16.4% 


38.9% 


4.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


336 


45 


67 


66 


55 


45 


614 


194.5 


89.0 






54.7% 


7.3% 


10.9% 


10.7% 


9.0% 


7.3% 


100.0% 






District 15A 






















Alamance 


Fel 


1,997 


437 


428 


206 


46 





3,114 


86.7 


71.0 






64.1% 


14.0% 


13.7% 


6.6% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


735 


119 


113 


49 


3 





1,019 


69.8 


61.0 






72.1% 


11.7% 


11.1% 


4.8% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 15B 






















Chatham 


Fel 


115 


55 


57 


124 


41 


1 


393 


178.7 


154.0 




Mis 


51 


10 


6 


17 


9 


3 


96 


158.9 


82.0 


Orange 


Fel 


284 


63 


190 


162 


22 





721 


134.2 


126.0 




Mis 


91 


11 


18 


22 


2 


1 


145 


106.4 


68.0 


District Totals Fel 


399 


118 


247 


286 


63 


1 


1,114 


149.9 


129.0 






35.8% 


10.6% 


22.2% 


25.7% 


5.7% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


142 


21 


24 


39 


11 


4 


241 


127.3 


74.0 






58.9% 


8.7% 


10.0% 


16.2% 


4.6% 


1.7% 


100.0% 






District 16A 






















Hoke 


Fel 


148 


39 


75 


72 


20 





354 


125.8 


107.0 




Mis 


52 


9 


37 


14 


8 


1 


121 


135.0 


115.0 


Scotland 


Fel 


236 


51 


140 


166 


62 


7 


662 


168.6 


145.0 




Mis 


74 


9 


31 


40 


5 


1 


160 


140.8 


106.0 


District Totals Fel 


384 


90 


215 


238 


82 


7 


1,016 


153.7 


141.0 






37.8% 


8.9% 


21.2% 


23.4% 


8.1% 


0.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


126 


18 


68 


54 


13 


2 


281 


138.3 


107.0 






44.8% 


6.4% 


24.2% 


19.2% 


4.6% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






District 16B 






















Robeson 


Fel 


674 


200 


320 


454 


167 


11 


1,826 


157.4 


125.0 






36.9% 


11.0% 


17.5% 


24.9% 


9.1% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


348 


69 


101 


120 


37 


36 


711 


169.9 


100.0 






48.9% 


9.7% 


14.2% 


16.9% 


5.2% 


5.1% 


100.0% 







179 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) Total Mean Med 







0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Disposed 


Age (Days) 


Age (Daj 


District 17A 






















Caswell 


Fel 


86 


20 


34 


25 


1 





166 


105.9 


89.0 




Mis 


150 


37 


31 


27 


2 





247 


89.3 


71.0 


Rockingham 


Fel 


387 


63 


360 


365 


281 


17 


1,473 


219.4 


168.0 




Mis 


288 


95 


153 


224 


92 


7 


859 


176.2 


141.0 


District Totals Fel 


473 


83 


394 


390 


282 


17 


1,639 


207.9 


168.0 






28.9% 


5.1% 


24.0% 


23.8% 


17.2% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


438 


132 


184 


251 


94 


7 


1,106 


156.8 


117.0 






39.6% 


11.9% 


16.6% 


22.7% 


8.5% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






District 17B 






















Stokes 


Fel 


240 


56 


72 


111 


28 


1 


508 


138.4 


103.0 




Mis 


203 


29 


47 


34 


6 





319 


95.3 


64.0 


Surry 


Fel 


398 


105 


97 


59 


25 


21 


705 


116.5 


81.0 




Mis 


410 


60 


81 


51 


7 


1 


610 


88.3 


69.5 


District Totals Fel 


638 


161 


169 


170 


53 


22 


1,213 


125.7 


88.0 






52.6% 


13.3% 


13.9% 


14.0% 


4.4% 


1.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


613 


89 


128 


85 


13 


1 


929 


90.7 


69.0 






66.0% 


9.6% 


13.8% 


9.1% 


1.4% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 18A-E 






















Guilford 


Fel 


2,801 


710 


892 


1,039 


349 


217 


6,008 


160.5 


98.0 






46.6% 


11.8% 


14.8% 


17.3% 


5.8% 


3.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


461 


86 


104 


186 


61 


23 


921 


156.4 


90.0 






50.1% 


9.3% 


11.3% 


20.2% 


6.6% 


2.5% 


100.0% 






District 19A 






















Cabarrus 


Fel 


332 


83 


165 


454 


118 


3 


1,155 


188.8 


178.0 






28.7% 


7.2% 


14.3% 


39.3% 


10.2% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


296 


66 


203 


259 


66 





890 


160.8 


138.5 






33.3% 


7.4% 


22.8% 


29.1% 


7.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 19B 






















Montgomery 


Fel 


54 


35 


50 


81 


51 





271 


218.4 


166.0 




Mis 


98 


14 


32 


51 


21 


1 


217 


159.9 


115.0 


Randolph 


Fel 


250 


91 


167 


194 


51 


26 


779 


182.5 


138.0 




Mis 


189 


52 


74 


105 


46 


9 


475 


173.1 


117.0 


District Total 


s Fel 


304 


126 


217 


275 


102 


26 


1,050 


191.8 


143.0 






29.0% 


12.0% 


20.7% 


26.2% 


9.7% 


2.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


287 


66 


106 


156 


67 


10 


692 


169.0 


116.0 






41.5% 


9.5% 


15.3% 


22.5% 


9.7% 


1.4% 


100.0% 






District 19C 






















Rowan 


Fel 


327 


121 


161 


553 


69 


9 


1,240 


189.6 


181.0 






26.4% 


9.8% 


13.0% 


44.6% 


5.6% 


0.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


136 


45 


76 


92 


27 





376 


153.0 


127.0 






36.2% 


12.0% 


20.2% 


24.5% 


7.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







180 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 











Ages of Di 


sposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


District 20A 






















Anson 


Fel 


196 


42 


37 


35 


1 





311 


92.0 


70.0 




Mis 


188 


31 


34 


14 


3 





270 


82.0 


61.5 


Moore 


Fel 


623 


83 


171 


166 


41 





1,084 


115.4 


72.0 




Mis 


295 


64 


67 


71 


6 


2 


505 


99.4 


73.0 


Richmond 


Fel 


619 


107 


124 


77 


13 





940 


88.4 


70.0 




Mis 


338 


91 


63 


67 


8 





567 


93.9 


75.0 


District Totals Fel 


1,438 


232 


332 


278 


55 





2,335 


101.4 


70.0 






61.6% 


9.9% 


14.2% 


11.9% 


2.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


821 


186 


164 


152 


17 


2 


1,342 


93.6 


72.0 






61.2% 


13.9% 


12.2% 


11.3% 


1.3% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 20B 






















Stanly 


Fel 


218 


63 


62 


75 


8 


1 


427 


121.4 


89.0 




Mis 


278 


60 


103 


83 


12 


5 


541 


117.3 


84.0 


Union 


Fel 


606 


103 


124 


192 


62 


2 


1,089 


135.6 


79.0 




Mis 


430 


71 


93 


108 


59 


7 


768 


135.7 


77.0 


District Totals Fel 


824 


166 


186 


267 


70 


3 


1,516 


131.6 


81.5 






54.4% 


10.9% 


12.3% 


17.6% 


4.6% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


708 


131 


196 


191 


71 


12 


1,309 


128.1 


82.0 






54.1% 


10.0% 


15.0% 


14.6% 


5.4% 


0.9% 


100.0% 






District 21A-D 






















Forsyth 


Fel 


1,606 


305 


340 


274 


74 





2,599 


95.4 


70.0 






61.8% 


11.7% 


13.1% 


10.5% 


2.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,137 


105 


72 


59 


10 





1,383 


66.7 


51.0 






82.2% 


7.6% 


5.2% 


4.3% 


0.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 22 






















Alexander 


Fel 


34 


22 


35 


50 


10 


2 


153 


180.7 


160.0 




Mis 


103 


19 


27 


26 


6 





181 


113.9 


81.0 


Davidson 


Fel 


220 


86 


161 


142 


39 


1 


649 


146.7 


126.0 




Mis 


277 


42 


65 


67 


11 


3 


465 


107.4 


70.0 


Davie 


Fel 


52 


16 


10 


21 


1 





100 


113.5 


79.5 




Mis 


84 


30 


24 


14 








152 


89.4 


84.0 


Iredell 


Fel 


325 


239 


199 


237 


81 





1,081 


154.0 


116.0 




Mis 


330 


136 


176 


164 


32 


1 


839 


134.6 


105.0 


District Totals Fel 


631 


363 


405 


450 


131 


3 


1,983 


151.6 


120.0 






31.8% 


18.3% 


20.4% 


22.7% 


6.6% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


794 


227 


292 


271 


49 


4 


1,637 


120.4 


92.0 






48.5% 


13.9% 


17.8% 


16.6% 


3.0% 


0.2% 


100.0% 







181 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) Total Mean Median 







0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Disposed 


Age (Days) 


Age (Day 


District 23 






















Alleghany 


Fel 


8 





5 


8 


3 


4 


28 


302.7 


187.0 




Mis 


11 


5 


6 


11 


8 


3 


44 


265.0 


174.5 


Ashe 


Fel 


36 


9 


3 


8 


11 


3 


70 


188.1 


90.0 




Mis 


17 


6 


13 


23 


4 


2 


65 


213.7 


173.0 


Wilkes 


Fel 


216 


33 


97 


50 


43 


4 


443 


140.7 


96.0 




Mis 


170 


42 


72 


73 


16 


2 


375 


133.4 


104.0 


Yadkin 


Fel 


69 


6 


9 


28 


1 


2 


115 


134.0 


80.0 




Mis 


54 


16 


16 


24 


7 





117 


135.4 


94.0 


District Totals Fel 


329 


48 


114 


94 


58 


13 


656 


151.5 


90.0 






50.2% 


7.3% 


17.4% 


14.3% 


8.8% 


2.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


252 


69 


107 


131 


35 


7 


601 


152.1 


108.0 






41.9% 


11.5% 


17.8% 


21.8% 


5.8% 


1.2% 


100.0% 






District 24 






















Avery 


Fel 


16 





11 


23 





22 


72 


430.9 


211.0 




Mis 


27 


1 


13 


14 


5 


2 


62 


187.7 


144.5 


Madison 


Fel 


26 


10 


20 


27 


9 





92 


179.0 


154.0 




Mis 


17 


5 


8 


3 








33 


97.7 


81.0 


Mitchell 


Fel 


33 


8 


6 


29 


16 


1 


93 


201.1 


174.0 




Mis 


5 





4 


11 


5 


1 


26 


293.5 


250.5 


Watauga 


Fel 


44 


18 


25 


88 


35 


3 


213 


222.2 


207.0 




Mis 


48 


15 


21 


39 


20 


26 


169 


278.0 


181.0 


Yancey 


Fel 


7 





7 


8 


8 





30 


233.1 


194.0 




Mis 


2 





1 


7 


3 





13 


263.5 


284.0 


District Totals Fel 


126 


36 


69 


175 


68 


26 


500 


241.0 


204.0 






25.2% 


7.2% 


13.8% 


35.0% 


13.6% 


5.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


99 


21 


47 


74 


33 


29 


303 


240.6 


163.0 






32.7% 


6.9% 


15.5% 


24.4% 


10.9% 


9.6% 


100.0% 






District 25A 






















Burke 


Fel 


84 


24 


59 


252 


133 


19 


571 


288.4 


234.0 




Mis 


224 


58 


88 


298 


68 


9 


745 


194.2 


181.0 


Caldwell 


Fel 


252 


100 


159 


325 


89 


14 


939 


201.6 


160.0 




Mis 


268 


121 


186 


251 


73 


4 


903 


170.5 


139.0 


District Total 


sFel 


336 


124 


218 


577 


222 


33 


1,510 


234.4 


203.0 






22.3% 


8.2% 


14.4% 


38.2% 


14.7% 


2.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


492 


179 


274 


549 


141 


13 


1,648 


181.2 


153.0 






29.9% 


10.9% 


16.6% 


33.3% 


8.6% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 25B 






















Catawba 


Fel 


252 


90 


184 


451 


147 


9 


1,133 


211.7 


194.0 






22.2% 


7.9% 


16.2% 


39.8% 


13.0% 


0.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


315 


92 


250 


239 


31 


4 


931 


147.0 


132.0 






33.8% 


9.9% 


26.9% 


25.7% 


3.3% 


0.4% 


100.0% 







182 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 











Ages of D 


sposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


District 26A-C 






















Mecklenburg 


Fel 


2,233 


445 


504 


405 


115 


22 


3,724 


106.4 


73.0 






60.0% 


11.9% 


13.5% 


10.9% 


3.1% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


628 


306 


335 


286 


70 


7 


1,632 


136.4 


107.0 






38.5% 


18.8% 


20.5% 


17.5% 


4.3% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 27A 






















Gaston 


Fel 


1,076 


234 


391 


526 


238 


6 


2,471 


150.6 


115.0 






43.5% 


9.5% 


15.8% 


21.3% 


9.6% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


279 


58 


88 


170 


80 


7 


682 


178.1 


125.0 






40.9% 


8.5% 


12.9% 


24.9% 


11.7% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






District 27B 






















Cleveland 


Fel 


365 


82 


118 


155 


83 


5 


808 


158.2 


105.0 




Mis 


98 


16 


23 


20 


18 


8 


183 


158.6 


76.0 


Lincoln 


Fel 


144 


46 


105 


200 


103 


17 


615 


242.4 


196.0 




Mis 


68 


19 


24 


49 


21 


6 


187 


199.0 


148.0 


District Total 


s Fel 


509 


128 


223 


355 


186 


22 


1,423 


194.6 


138.0 






35.8% 


9.0% 


15.7% 


24.9% 


13.1% 


1.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


166 


35 


47 


69 


39 


14 


370 


179.0 


113.0 






44.9% 


9.5% 


12.7% 


18.6% 


10.5% 


3.8% 


100.0% 






District 28 






















Buncombe 


Fel 


919 


259 


352 


501 


306 


4 


2,341 


172.1 


120.0 






39.3% 


11.1% 


15.0% 


21.4% 


13.1% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


491 


148 


117 


141 


22 


1 


920 


106.6 


85.0 






53.4% 


16.1% 


12.7% 


15.3% 


2.4% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 29 






















Henderson 


Fel 


322 


43 


104 


183 


89 


6 


747 


181.6 


138.0 




Mis 


134 


31 


40 


84 


46 


4 


339 


182.6 


126.0 


McDowell 


Fel 


58 


13 


60 


88 


46 


5 


270 


234.3 


200.0 




Mis 


57 


39 


67 


47 


26 


6 


242 


190.2 


128.5 


Polk 


Fel 


12 


4 


4 


36 


14 





70 


303.4 


349.0 




Mis 


25 


8 


10 


9 


5 





57 


136.5 


109.0 


Rutherford 


Fel 


189 


60 


100 


172 


60 


7 


588 


192.1 


146.0 




Mis 


249 


86 


180 


251 


50 


8 


824 


169.3 


151.5 


Transylvania 


Fel 


80 


14 


22 


45 


32 


26 


219 


343.1 


171.0 




Mis 


29 


8 


9 


15 


9 


7 


77 


265.9 


149.0 


District Totals Fel 


661 


134 


290 


524 


241 


44 


1,894 


215.5 


153.0 






34.9% 


7.1% 


15.3% 


27.7% 


12.7% 


2.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


494 


172 


306 


406 


136 


25 


1,539 


179.1 


137.0 






32.1% 


11.2% 


19.9% 


26.4% 


8.8% 


1.6% 


100.0% 







183 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 











Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Mediar 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Daj 


District 30A 






















Cherokee 


Fel 


48 


19 


33 


87 


9 


8 


204 


191.7 


186.0 




Mis 


70 


51 


15 


31 


5 


5 


177 


137.0 


106.0 


Clay 


Fel 


34 


12 


21 


29 








96 


136.3 


145.0 




Mis 


14 





7 


5 


1 





27 


131.8 


73.0 


Graham 


Fel 


8 


20 


6 


83 


7 





124 


224.7 


188.0 




Mis 


32 


4 


11 


23 


2 


2 


74 


164.6 


124.0 


Macon 


Fel 


38 


28 


24 


16 


21 





127 


190.6 


115.0 




Mis 


34 


15 


15 


19 


3 





86 


130.6 


108.0 


Swain 


Fel 


49 


38 


18 


21 


2 





128 


122.7 


113.0 




Mis 


28 


3 


4 


14 


9 





58 


187.5 


93.5 


District Totals Fel 


177 


117 


102 


236 


39 


8 


679 


176.7 


146.0 






26.1% 


17.2% 


15.0% 


34.8% 


5.7% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


178 


73 


52 


92 


20 


7 


422 


147.1 


106.0 






42.2% 


17.3% 


12.3% 


21.8% 


4.7% 


1.7% 


100.0% 






District 30B 






















Haywood 


Fel 


203 


25 


35 


18 


21 


5 


307 


118.0 


60.0 




Mis 


227 


15 


14 


19 


6 





281 


67.5 


41.0 


Jackson 


Fel 


108 


7 


18 


11 


3 


11 


158 


166.6 


62.0 




Mis 


68 


15 


20 


11 








114 


86.1 


68.5 


District Totals Fel 


311 


32 


53 


29 


24 


16 


465 


134.5 


60.0 






66.9% 


6.9% 


11.4% 


6.2% 


5.2% 


3.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


295 


30 


34 


30 


6 





395 


72.8 


47.0 






74.7% 


7.6% 


8.6% 


7.6% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


Fel 


37,815 


9,008 


11,394 


14,399 


6,004 


1,060 


79,680 


149.6 


97.0 






47.5% 


11.3% 


14.3% 


18.1% 


7.5% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


21,656 


4,141 


5,367 


6,176 


1,840 


396 


39,576 


124.2 


80.0 






54.7% 


10.5% 


13.6% 


15.6% 


4.6% 


1.0% 


100.0% 







184 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



Prosecutorial 








Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 


District 




o-yo 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


1 


Fel 


360 


123 


285 


297 


130 


35 


1,230 


199.9 


145.0 






29.3% 


10.0% 


23.2% 


24.1% 


10.6% 


2.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


407 


117 


194 


271 


82 


19 


1,090 


169.5 


128.0 






37.3% 


10.7% 


17.8% 


24.9% 


7.5% 


1.7% 


100.0% 






2 


Fel 


593 


163 


186 


239 


74 





1,255 


134.0 


98.0 






47.3% 


13.0% 


14.8% 


19.0% 


5.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


427 


128 


172 


191 


37 





955 


125.9 


103.0 






44.7% 


13.4% 


18.0% 


20.0% 


3.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






3A 


Fel 


683 


272 


376 


536 


221 


25 


2,113 


173.9 


128.0 






32.3% 


12.9% 


17.8% 


25.4% 


10.5% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,529 


154 


117 


105 


19 


4 


1,928 


69.6 


53.0 






79.3% 


8.0% 


6.1% 


5.4% 


1.0% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






3B 


Fel 


1,146 


217 


204 


139 


53 


16 


1,775 


101.4 


68.0 






64.6% 


12.2% 


11.5% 


7.8% 


3.0% 


0.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


564 


70 


58 


63 


15 


2 


772 


78.9 


56.0 






73.1% 


9.1% 


7.5% 


8.2% 


1.9% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






4 


Fel 


2,040 


238 


281 


291 


35 


3 


2,888 


80.0 


50.0 






70.6% 


8.2% 


9.7% 


10.1% 


1.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


460 


64 


61 


82 


11 





678 


84.9 


55.0 






67.8% 


9.4% 


9.0% 


12.1% 


1.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






5 


Fel 


1,428 


430 


282 


349 


71 


5 


2,565 


108.9 


82.0 






55.7% 


16.8% 


11.0% 


13.6% 


2.8% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


907 


182 


159 


146 


52 


2 


1,448 


95.7 


62.0 






62.6% 


12.6% 


11.0% 


10.1% 


3.6% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






6A 


Fel 


313 


114 


193 


193 


65 


10 


888 


168.0 


137.5 


v 




35.2% 


12.8% 


21.7% 


21.7% 


7.3% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


142 


23 


73 


86 


63 


11 


398 


211.0 


141.0 






35.7% 


5.8% 


18.3% 


21.6% 


15.8% 


2.8% 


100.0% 






6B 


Fel 


632 


111 


98 


62 


24 


9 


936 


88.2 


52.0 






67.5% 


11.9% 


10.5% 


6.6% 


2.6% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


188 


39 


45 


40 


16 


4 


332 


119.4 


72.5 






56.6% 


11.7% 


13.6% 


12.0% 


4.8% 


1.2% 


100.0% 






7 


Fel 


2,151 


343 


268 


316 


88 


51 


3,217 


101.9 


55.0 






66.9% 


10.7% 


8.3% 


9.8% 


2.7% 


1.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


636 


83 


61 


78 


31 


10 


899 


96.9 


55.0 






70.7% 


9.2% 


6.8% 


8.7% 


3.4% 


1.1% 


100.0% 






8 


Fel 


1,148 


174 


182 


258 


81 


19 


1,862 


109.6 


61.0 






61.7% 


9.3% 


9.8% 


13.9% 


4.4% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,035 


173 


281 


261 


92 


7 


1,849 


114.5 


76.0 






56.0% 


9.4% 


15.2% 


14.1% 


5.0% 


0.4% 


100.0% 







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

185 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



osecutorial 








Ages of Di« 


;posed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 


District 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


9 


Fel 


1,331 


504 


405 


264 


97 


57 


2,658 


133.4 


90.0 






50.1% 


19.0% 


15.2% 


9.9% 


3.6% 


2.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


980 


233 


247 


243 


99 


56 


1,858 


147.9 


85.0 






52.7% 


12.5% 


13.3% 


13.1% 


5.3% 


3.0% 


100.0% 






10 


Fel 


2,658 


654 


591 


714 


285 


102 


5,004 


140.4 


83.0 






53.1% 


13.1% 


11.8% 


14.3% 


5.7% 


2.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


2,199 


93 


80 


115 


44 


7 


2,538 


58.3 


32.0 






86.6% 


3.7% 


3.2% 


4.5% 


1.7% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






11 


Fel 


1,174 


232 


206 


251 


47 


10 


1,920 


108.4 


75.0 






61.1% 


12.1% 


10.7% 


13.1% 


2.4% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


541 


101 


123 


125 


13 


2 


905 


98.3 


70.0 






59.8% 


11.2% 


13.6% 


13.8% 


1.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






12 


Fel 


1,194 


231 


387 


508 


194 


44 


2,558 


154.8 


100.0 






46.7% 


9.0% 


15.1% 


19.9% 


7.6% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


333 


35 


53 


53 


36 


10 


520 


116.3 


59.0 






64.0% 


6.7% 


10.2% 


10.2% 


6.9% 


1.9% 


100.0% 






13 


Fel 


441 


151 


225 


274 


46 


14 


1,151 


148.8 


113.0 






38.3% 


13.1% 


19.5% 


23.8% 


4.0% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


241 


58 


88 


100 


23 


2 


512 


134.8 


98.0 






47.1% 


11.3% 


17.2% 


19.5% 


4.5% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






14 


Fel 


766 


209 


254 


501 


1,188 


138 


3,056 


334.1 


279.0 






25.1% 


6.8% 


8.3% 


16.4% 


38.9% 


4.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


336 


45 


67 


66 


55 


45 


614 


194.5 


89.0 






54.7% 


7.3% 


10.9% 


10.7% 


9.0% 


7.3% 


100.0% 






15A 


Fel 


1,997 


437 


428 


206 


46 





3,114 


86.7 


71.0 






64.1% 


14.0% 


13.7% 


6.6% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


735 


119 


113 


49 


3 





1,019 


69.8 


61.0 






72.1% 


11.7% 


11.1% 


4.8% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






15B 


Fel 


399 


118 


247 


286 


63 


1 


1,114 


149.9 


129.0 






35.8% 


10.6% 


22.2% 


25.7% 


5.7% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


142 


21 


24 


39 


11 


4 


241 


127.3 


74.0 






58.9% 


8.7% 


10.0% 


16.2% 


4.6% 


1.7% 


100.0% 






16A 


Fel 


384 


90 


215 


238 


82 


7 


1,016 


153.7 


141.0 






37.8% 


8.9% 


21.2% 


23.4% 


8.1% 


0.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


126 


18 


68 


54 


13 


2 


281 


138.3 


107.0 






44.8% 


6.4% 


24.2% 


19.2% 


4.6% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






16B 


Fel 


674 


200 


320 


454 


167 


11 


1,826 


157.4 


125.0 






36.9% 


11.0% 


17.5% 


24.9% 


9.1% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


348 


69 


101 


120 


37 


36 


711 


169.9 


100.0 






48.9% 


9.7% 


14.2% 


16.9% 


5.2% 


5.1% 


100.0% 







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

186 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



Prosecutorial 








Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 


District 


0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


17A 


Fel 


473 


83 


394 


390 


282 


17 


1,639 


207.9 


168.0 






28.9% 


5.1% 


24.0% 


23.8% 


17.2% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


438 


132 


184 


251 


94 


7 


1,106 


156.8 


117.0 






39.6% 


11.9% 


16.6% 


22.7% 


8.5% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






17B 


Fel 


638 


161 


169 


170 


53 


22 


1,213 


125.7 


88.0 






52.6% 


13.3% 


13.9% 


14.0% 


4.4% 


1.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


613 


89 


128 


85 


13 


1 


929 


90.7 


69.0 






66.0% 


9.6% 


13.8% 


9.1% 


1.4% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






18 


Fel 


2,801 


710 


892 


1,039 


349 


217 


6,008 


160.5 


98.0 






46.6% 


11.8% 


14.8% 


17.3% 


5.8% 


3.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


461 


86 


104 


186 


61 


23 


921 


156.4 


90.0 






50.1% 


9.3% 


11.3% 


20.2% 


6.6% 


2.5% 


100.0% 






19A 


Fel 


659 


204 


326 


1,007 


187 


12 


2,395 


189.2 


181.0 






27.5% 


8.5% 


13.6% 


42.0% 


7.8% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


432 


111 


279 


351 


93 





1,266 


158.5 


135.0 






34.1% 


8.8% 


22.0% 


27.7% 


7.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






19B 


Fel 


304 


126 


217 


275 


102 


26 


1,050 


191.8 


143.0 






29.0% 


12.0% 


20.7% 


26.2% 


9.7% 


2.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


287 


66 


106 


156 


67 


10 


692 


169.0 


116.0 






41.5% 


9.5% 


15.3% 


22.5% 


9.7% 


1.4% 


100.0% 






20 


Fel 


2,262 


398 


518 


545 


125 


3 


3,851 


113.3 


76.0 






58.7% 


10.3% 


13.5% 


14.2% 


3.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,529 


317 


360 


343 


88 


14 


2,651 


110.6 


76.0 






57.7% 


12.0% 


13.6% 


12.9% 


3.3% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






21 


Fel 


1,606 


305 


340 


274 


74 





2,599 


95.4 


70.0 


x 




61.8% 


11.7% 


13.1% 


10.5% 


2.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,137 


105 


72 


59 


10 





1,383 


66.7 


51.0 






82.2% 


7.6% 


5.2% 


4.3% 


0.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






22 


Fel 


631 


363 


405 


450 


131 


3 


1,983 


151.6 


120.0 






31.8% 


18.3% 


20.4% 


22.7% 


6.6% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


794 


227 


292 


271 


49 


4 


1,637 


120.4 


92.0 






48.5% 


13.9% 


17.8% 


16.6% 


3.0% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






23 


Fel 


329 


48 


114 


94 


58 


13 


656 


151.5 


90.0 






50.2% 


7.3% 


17.4% 


14.3% 


8.8% 


2.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


252 


69 


107 


131 


35 


7 


601 


152.1 


108.0 






41.9% 


11.5% 


17.8% 


21.8% 


5.8% 


1.2% 


100.0% 







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

187 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



Prosecutorial 








Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 


District 


0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


24 


Fel 


126 


36 


69 


175 


68 


26 


500 


241.0 


204.0 






25.2% 


7.2% 


13.8% 


35.0% 


13.6% 


5.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


99 


21 


47 


74 


33 


29 


303 


240.6 


163.0 






32.7% 


6.9% 


15.5% 


24.4% 


10.9% 


9.6% 


100.0% 






25 


Fel 


588 


214 


402 


1,028 


369 


42 


2,643 


224.7 


202.0 






22.2% 


8.1% 


15.2% 


38.9% 


14.0% 


1.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


807 


271 


524 


788 


172 


17 


2,579 


168.9 


142.0 






31.3% 


10.5% 


20.3% 


30.6% 


6.7% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






26 


Fel 


2,233 


445 


504 


405 


115 


22 


3,724 


106.4 


73.0 






60.0% 


11.9% 


13.5% 


10.9% 


3.1% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


628 


306 


335 


286 


70 


7 


1,632 


136.4 


107.0 






38.5% 


18.8% 


20.5% 


17.5% 


4.3% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






27A 


Fel 


1,076 


234 


391 


526 


238 


6 


2,471 


150.6 


115.0 






43.5% 


9.5% 


15.8% 


21.3% 


9.6% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


279 


58 


88 


170 


80 


7 


682 


178.1 


125.0 






40.9% 


8.5% 


12.9% 


24.9% 


11.7% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






27B 


Fel 


509 


128 


223 


355 


186 


22 


1,423 


194.6 


138.0 






35.8% 


9.0% 


15.7% 


24.9% 


13.1% 


1.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


166 


35 


47 


69 


39 


14 


370 


179.0 


113.0 






44.9% 


9.5% 


12.7% 


18.6% 


10.5% 


3.8% 


100.0% 






28 


Fel 


919 


259 


352 


501 


306 


4 


2,341 


172.1 


120.0 






39.3% 


11.1% 


15.0% 


21.4% 


13.1% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


491 


148 


117 


141 


22 


1 


920 


106.6 


85.0 






53.4% 


16.1% 


12.7% 


15.3% 


2.4% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






2') 


Fel 


661 


134 


290 


524 


241 


44 


1,894 


215.5 


153.0 






34.9% 


7.1% 


15.3% 


27.7% 


12.7% 


2.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


494 


172 


306 


406 


136 


25 


1,539 


179.1 


137.0 






32.1% 


11.2% 


19.9% 


26.4% 


8.8% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






30 


Fel 


488 


149 


155 


265 


63 


24 


1,144 


159.5 


114.0 






42.7% 


13.0% 


13.5% 


23.2% 


5.5% 


2.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


473 


103 


86 


122 


26 


7 


817 


111.2 


73.0 






57.9% 


12.6% 


10.5% 


14.9% 


3.2% 


0.9% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


Fel 


37,815 


9,008 


11,394 


14,399 


6,004 


1,060 


79,680 


149.6 


97.0 






47.5% 


11.3% 


14.3% 


18.1% 


7.5% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


21,656 


4,141 


5,367 


6,176 


1,840 


396 


39,576 


124.2 


80.0 






54.7% 


10.5% 


13.6% 


15.6% 


4.6% 


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.) 

188 



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 1991-92 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. Magis- 
trates are empowered to hear and enter judgments as 
directed by the chief district court judge in criminal 
worthless check cases when the amount of the check 
does not exceed $2,000, provided that the sentence 
imposed does not exceed 30 days. In addition, they may 
accept written appearances, waivers of trial, and pleas of 
guilty, and enter judgments as the chief district court 
judge directs, in certain littering cases, and in worthless 
check cases when the amount of the check is $2,000 or 
less, the offender has made restitution, and the warrant 
does not charge a fourth or subsequent worthless check 
violation. Magistrates may also accept waivers of 
appearances, pleas of guilty or admissions of respon- 
sibility, and enter judgments in misdemeanor or infrac- 
tion cases involving certain alcohol, traffic, hunting, 
fishing, and boating offenses in accordance with a 
uniform schedule adopted by the Conference of Chief 
District Court Judges. In other misdemeanor and infrac- 
tion cases, where the punishment cannot exceed im- 
prisonment for 30 days or a $50 fine or penalty, magis- 



trates may accept guilty pleas or admissions of responsi- 
bility and enter judgment. Magistrates have authority to 
issue arrest warrants valid throughout the state and 
search warrants valid throughout the county, grant bail 
before trial in any noncapital case, and conduct initial 
appearances under G.S. 15A-51 1. 

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 
1991-92 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, 
1992, and the ages of cases disposed of during 1991-92 
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, 1992, was 202 days, compared with a median 
age of 209 days for domestic relations cases pending on 
June 30, 1991. For general civil and magistrate appeal/ 
transfer cases, the median age of cases pending on June 
30, 1992, was 216 days, compared with 193 days on June 
30, 1991. At the time of disposition during 1991-92, the 
median age of domestic relations cases was 48 days, and 
the median age for general civil and magistrate appeal 
transfer cases was 104 days, compared with a median age 
of 48 days at the time of disposition for domestic rela- 
tions cases and 108 days for general civil and magistrate 



191 



The District Court Division, Continued 



appeal transfer cases during 1990-91. 

For district court non-motor vehicle criminal cases, 
the median age for cases pending on June 30, 1992, was 
64 days, about the same as the median age for such cases 
pending on June 30, 1991. 65 days. The median age of 
non-motor vehicle criminal cases at the time of dispo- 
sition during 1991-92 was 36 days, compared with 34 
days for these cases at the time of disposition during 
1990-91. 

The statewide total district court filings during 1991- 
92. not including juvenile cases and mental health 
hospital commitment hearings, was 2,294,688 cases, 
compared with 2,253,348 during 1990-91, an increase of 
41.340 filings (1.8%). Filings of infraction cases increased 
by 41.668 cases, or 6.4%. from 651,728 in 1990-91 to 



693,396 in 1991-92. Filings of criminal non-motor vehicle 
cases increased by 19,303 cases, 3.2%, from 610,286 cases 
in 1990-91, to 629,589 in 1991-92. The largest percentage 
increase in filings was for domestic relations cases, which 
increased by 9.2%, or 7,893 cases, from 85,331 in 1990-91 
to 93,224 in 1991-92. 

Filings of civil magistrate cases decreased by 6.8%, 
from 279,209 cases in 1990-91, to 260,289 cases in 1991- 
92. There was also a decrease in filings of general civil 
cases, of 4,125 cases or 6.6%, from 62,709 in 1990-91, to 
58,584 in 1991-92. Civil license revocation filings de- 
creased by 3,847 cases, 5.5%, from 70,1 1 1 in 1990-91 to 
66,264 in 1991-92. Filings of criminal motor vehicle cases 
decreased slightly, by 632 cases or 0.1%, from 493,974 in 
1990-91 to 493,342 in 1991-92. 



192 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 



693,396 



,681,614 



260,289 



268,706 



93,224 90,706 




66,264 



N/A 




Domestic 
Relations 



General 
Civil 



Civil 
Magistrate 



□ hi 



Civil 

License 

Revocation 



Infraction 



Criminal 
Motor 
Vehicle 



Criminal 

Non-Motor 

Vehicle 



ings 



Dispositions 



The 66,264 civil license revocations are automatic, 10- 
day driver license suspensions imposed on drivers 
arrested on suspicion of impaired driving whose breath 
tests show a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more. 
There was a 5.5% decrease in civil license revocation 
filings compared to 70,111 filed in 1990-91. These cases 
are counted only at filing. Criminal motor vehicle and 
infraction cases (almost all of which are traffic-related) 



made up 5 1 .7% of total district court filings and 53.0% of 
total dispositions during 1991-92. The civil case cate- 
gories together (domestic, general civil, which includes 
appealed civil magistrate cases, civil magistrate, and civil 
license revocation) accounted for 20.8% of total filings 
(478,361 of 2,294,688). Criminal non-motor vehicle case 
filings accounted for 27.4% of total filings. 



193 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



1982-83 -- 1991-92 




2,500,000 



2,000,000 



1,500,000 



Number 

of 
Cases 



1,000,000 



500,000 



82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-8 



-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 



Total filings in the district courts increased by 1 .8% from 
2.253.348 in 1990-91 to 2,294,688 in 1991-92. Total filings 
on this graph include all civil, infraction, and criminal 
cases. Total dispositions (which do not include civil 
license revocations, as these are counted only at filing) 



have increased every year since 1982-83, reaching 
2,225,905 dispositions during 1991-92, an increase of 
2.3% from the 2,175,869 total dispositions in 1990-91. 
During 1991-92, not including infraction filings, case 
filings exceeded dispositions by 2,519 cases (0.1%). 



194 



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

1982-83 -- 1991-92 



All Cases 




Domestic and General Civil Cases 

a- 



Filings # . 



Dispositions 



450,000 



300,000 



Number 

of 
Cases 



150,000 



82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-5 



-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 



After increasing for five years until 1988-89, civil magis- 
trate (often known as small claims) filings have decreased 
for the past three years, by 5.0% in 1989-90, 4.6% in 
1990-91, and 6.8% in 1991-92. During 1991-92, civil 
magistrate case dispositions (268,706) exceeded filings 
(260,289) by 8,417 cases. Filings and dispositions of 
domestic relations and general civil cases increased from 



1990-91 to 1991-92. Filings of these cases increased by 
2.5%, from 148,040 in 1990-91 to 151,808 in 1991-92, 
while dispositions increased by 5.2%, from 144,539 in 
1990-91 to 151,985 in 1991-92. During 1991-92, dispo- 
sitions of domestic relations and general civil cases 
exceeded filings, by 177 cases. 



195 



CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



93,224 



90,706 



61,279 



58,584 



39,247 



36,552 



37,413 




39,931 



General Civil and Civil 
Magistrate Appeal/Transfer 



Domestic Relations 



Begin Pending I Filings 



U Dispositions H End Pending 



During 1991-92, 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 at the beginning (2,695 fewer cases, a 



6.9% decrease). Filings of domestic relations cases 
exceeded dispositions, resulting in an increase of 2,518 
cases (6.7%) in the number of pending cases. 



196 



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

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



54,246 



49,407 




URESA 



IV-D Child 
Support 



Non IV-D Child 
Support 



2.2% 



Domestic Relations 
17.9% 8.8% 



Other 



32.5% 



General Civil 



35.7% 



Magistrate 
Appeal/Transfer 

2.9% 



"URESA" stands for the Uniform Reciprocal 
Enforcement 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 divorces in which child 
support is not an issue. "General Civil" refers to other 
civil cases in district court (contracts, 



collections, negligence, etc.). "Magistrate 

Appeal/Transfer" cases are appeals and transfers from 
small claims court. The domestic relations categories 
combined represent 61.4% of the total civil non- 
magistrate cases (93,224 of 151,808). In 1991-92, 
compared to 1990-91, there were decreases in filings of 
URESA cases (6.1%), general civil cases (7.0%), and 
magistrate appeals and transfers (1.4%). Filings of IV- 
D Child Support cases increased by 19.3%, filings of 
Non IV-D Child Support cases increased by 2.0%, and 
fdings of "Other" domestic cases increased by 7.5%. 



197 



; 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 

CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Domestic Relations General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 

Begin End Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



District 1 


























Camden 


28 


35 


6? 


40 


63.5% 


23 


9 


18 


27 


17 


63.0% 


10 


Chowan 


58 


166 


224 


167 


74.6% 


57 


39 


72 


111 


73 


65.8% 


38 


Currituck 


67 


144 


211 


128 


60.7% 


83 


101 


75 


176 


117 


66.5% 


59 


Dare 


127 


262 


389 


246 


63.2% 


143 


289 


319 


608 


252 


41.4% 


356 


Gates 


37 


87 


124 


75 


60.5% 


49 


15 


46 


61 


42 


68.9% 


19 


Pasquotank 


245 


452 


697 


400 


57.4% 


297 


113 


208 


321 


174 


54.2% 


147 


Perquimans 


91 


112 


203 


116 


57.1% 


87 


31 


36 


67 


32 


47.8% 


35 


District Totals 


653 


1,258 


1,911 


1,172 


61.3% 


739 


597 


774 


1,371 


707 


51.6% 


664 


District 2 


























Beaufort 


298 


677 


975 


627 


64.3% 


348 


186 


159 


345 


188 


54.5% 


157 


Hyde 


15 


42 


57 


24 


42.1% 


33 


24 


13 


37 


12 


32.4% 


25 


Martin 


190 


319 


509 


273 


53.6% 


236 


45 


73 


118 


53 


44.9% 


65 


Tyrrell 


15 


54 


69 


51 


73.9% 


18 


14 


19 


33 


25 


75.8% 


8 


Washington 


59 


219 


278 


226 


81.3% 


52 


79 


77 


156 


104 


66.7% 


52 


District Totals 


577 


1,311 


1,888 


1,201 


63.6% 


687 


348 


341 


689 


382 


55.4% 


307 



District 3A 


























Pitt 


255 


1,572 


1,827 


1,367 


74.8% 


460 


304 


847 


1,151 


855 


74.3% 


296 


District 3B 


























Carteret 


166 


656 


822 


592 


72.0% 


230 


108 


346 


454 


340 


74.9% 


114 


Craven 


336 


1,029 


1,365 


993 


72.7% 


372 


205 


653 


858 


633 


73.8% 


225 


Pamlico 


29 


110 


139 


101 


72.7% 


38 


22 


34 


56 


40 


71.4% 


16 


District Totals 


531 


1,795 


2,326 


1,686 


72.5% 


640 


335 


1,033 


1,368 


1,013 


74.0% 


355 


District 4 


























Duplin 


183 


544 


727 


581 


79.9% 


146 


114 


197 


311 


206 


66.2% 


105 


Jones 


56 


151 


207 


160 


77.3% 


47 


24 


29 


53 


42 


79.2% 


11 


Onslow 


1,458 


2,124 


3,582 


2,557 


71.4% 


1,025 


1,022 


783 


1,805 


1,120 


62.0% 


685 


Sampson 


173 


681 


854 


643 


75.3% 


211 


113 


275 


388 


285 


73.5% 


103 



District Totals 1,870 3,500 5,370 3,941 



73.4% 



1,429 



1,273 1,284 2,557 



1,653 



64.6% 



904 



)istrict 5 
New Hanover 


579 


1,787 


2,366 


1,855 


78.4% 


Pender 


134 


326 


460 


374 


81.3% 


District Totals 


713 


2,113 


2,826 


2,229 


78.9% 



511 1,053 1,618 2,671 1,733 64.9% 938 

86 114 187 301 202 67.1% 99 



597 



1,167 1,805 2,972 1,935 65.1% 1,037 



198 



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

July 1,1991 -- June 30, 1992 

(General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 



Domestic Relations 



Begin End Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



District 6A 


























Halifax 


247 


1,275 


1,522 


1,158 


76.1% 


364 


71 


204 


275 


208 


75.6% 


67 


District 6B 


























Bertie 


110 


317 


427 


338 


79.2% 


89 


28 


80 


108 


82 


75.9% 


26 


Hertford 


130 


361 


491 


376 


76.6% 


115 


60 


85 


145 


114 


78.6% 


31 


Northampton 


110 


345 


455 


396 


87.0% 


59 


45 


59 


104 


82 


78.8% 


22 



District Totals 350 1,023 1,373 1,110 



80.8% 



263 



133 



224 



357 



278 



77.9% 



79 



District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 



259 970 1,229 
396 1,276 1,672 
217 1,470 1,687 



891 


72.5% 


338 


120 


297 


417 


283 


67.9% 


134 


,214 


72.6% 


458 


340 


585 


925 


572 


61.8% 


353 


,318 


78.1% 


369 


252 


471 


723 


492 


68.0% 


231 



District Totals 872 3,716 4,588 3,423 



74.6% 



1,165 



712 1,353 2,065 



1,347 



65.2% 



718 



District 8 



Greene 


32 


148 


180 


145 


80.6% 


35 


31 


63 


94 


61 


64.9% 


33 


Lenoir 


176 


809 


985 


796 


80.8% 


189 


181 


398 


579 


404 


69.8% 


175 


Wayne 


730 


1,689 


2,419 


1,751 


72.4% 


668 


663 


1,036 


1,699 


868 


51.1% 


831 


District Totals 


938 


2,646 


3,584 


2,692 


75.1% 


892 


875 


1,497 


2,372 


1,333 


56.2% 


1,039 


district 9 

Franklin 


154 


465 


619 


432 


69.8% 


187 


151 


592 


743 


386 


52.0% 


357 


Granville 


143 


453 


596 


439 


73.7% 


157 


82 


171 


253 


170 


67.2% 


83 


Person 


73 


347 


420 


315 


75.0% 


105 


73 


158 


231 


162 


70.1% 


69 


Vance 


173 


649 


822 


625 


76.0% 


197 


165 


291 


456 


274 


60.1% 


182 


Warren 


69 


243 


312 


169 


54.2% 


143 


32 


67 


99 


62 


62.6% 


37 



District Totals 612 2,157 2,769 1,980 



71.5% 



789 



503 1,279 1,782 



1,054 



59.1% 



728 



District 10 

Wake 



5,558 4,956 10,514 5,507 52.4% 5,007 7,328 7,033 14,361 



7,723 



53.8% 6,638 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 



261 


861 


1,122 


840 


74.9% 


282 


319 


486 


805 


556 


69.1% 


249 


241 


1,476 


1,717 


1,324 


77.1% 


393 


264 


745 


1,009 


641 


63.5% 


368 


228 


699 


927 


627 


67.6% 


300 


258 


406 


664 


448 


67.5% 


216 



District Totals 730 3,036 3,766 2,791 



74.1% 



975 



841 1,637 2,478 



1,645 



66.4% 



833 



District 12 

Cumberland 2,545 5,466 8,011 5,065 



63.2% 2,946 

199 



596 1,508 2,104 



1,639 



77.9% 



465 



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

July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 

Domestic Relations General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 

Begin End Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 



End 
% Caseload Pending Pending 
7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



District 13 
Bladen 

Brunswick 
Columbus 



82 


368 


450 


312 


69.3% 


138 


161 


298 


459 


319 


69.5% 


140 


322 


611 


933 


619 


66.3% 


314 


284 


329 


613 


389 


63.5% 


224 


318 


725 


1,043 


804 


77.1% 


239 


255 


380 


635 


404 


63.6% 


231 



District Totals 722 1,704 2,426 1,735 



71.5% 



691 



700 1,007 1,707 



1,112 



65.1% 



595 



District 14 












Durham 


1,558 


2,718 


4,276 


3,074 


71.9% 


District 15A 












Alamance 


454 


1,326 


1,780 


1,297 


72.9% 


District 15B 












Chatham 


183 


517 


700 


487 


69.6% 


Orange 


430 


893 


1,323 


782 


59.1% 



1,202 1,244 1,896 3,140 1,939 61.8% 1,201 



483 566 1,290 1,856 1,079 58.1% 777 



213 68 124 192 123 64.1% 69 

541 455 645 1,100 659 59.9% 441 



District Totals 613 1,410 2,023 



1,269 



62.7% 



754 



523 769 1,292 



782 



60.5% 



510 



District 16A 


























Hoke 


92 


319 


411 


301 


73.2% 


110 


37 


108 


145 


98 


67.6% 


47 


Scotland 


156 


639 


795 


594 


74.7% 


201 


130 


244 


374 


267 


71.4% 


107 


District Totals 


248 


958 


1,206 


895 


74.2% 


311 


167 


352 


519 


365 


70.3% 


154 


District 16B 


























Robeson 


715 


2,061 


2,776 


1,919 


69.1% 


857 


857 


742 


1,599 


792 


49.5% 


807 


District 17A 


























Caswell 


55 


221 


276 


204 


73.9% 


72 


30 


59 


89 


66 


74.2% 


23 


Rockingham 


222 


1,020 


1,242 


982 


79.1% 


260 


178 


370 


548 


440 


80.3% 


108 



District Totals 277 1,241 1,518 



1,186 



78.1% 



332 



208 



429 637 



506 



79.4% 



131 



)istrict 17B 














Stokes 


<j5 


278 


373 


264 


70.8% 


109 


Surry 


201 


730 


931 


678 


72.8% 


253 



76 108 184 

157 410 567 



103 56.0% 81 

426 75.1% 141 



District Totals 296 1,008 1,304 942 72.2% 



362 



233 518 751 



529 70.4% 



222 



District 18 

Guilford 



3,068 5,848 8,916 5,253 58.9% 3,663 4,918 4,831 9,749 5,189 53.2% 4,560 



200 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 

District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 



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

July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 

Domestic Relations General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 

Begin End Begin Knd 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 



End 
% Caseload Pending Pending 
7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



260 1,119 1,379 1,117 



219 487 706 

305 1,031 1,336 



District Totals 524 1,518 2,042 



117 


81.0% 


262 


266 


951 


1,217 


902 


74.1% 


315 


302 


42.8% 


404 


115 


202 


317 


156 


49.2% 


161 


898 


67.2% 


438 


199 


479 


678 


476 


70.2% 


202 


200 


58.8% 


842 


314 


681 


995 


632 


63.5% 


363 



District 19C 


























Rowan 


298 


1,251 


1,549 


1,232 


79.5% 


317 


374 


615 


989 


719 


72.7% 


270 


District 20 
















■ 










Anson 


152 


382 


534 


302 


56.6% 


232 


145 


94 


239 


101 


42.3% 


138 


Moore 


319 


709 


1,028 


595 


57.9% 


433 


384 


382 


766 


331 


43.2% 


435 


Richmond 


294 


708 


1,002 


629 


62.8% 


373 


233 


308 


541 


219 


40.5% 


322 


Stanly 


258 


668 


926 


567 


61.2% 


359 


212 


405 


617 


345 


55.9% 


272 


Union 


282 


900 


1,182 


887 


75.0% 


295 


456 


482 


938 


462 


49.3% 


476 



District Totals 1,305 3,367 4,672 



2,980 



63.8% 1,692 1,430 1,671 3,101 



1,458 



47.0% 



1,643 



District 21 

Forsyth 



1,236 3,586 4,822 3,315 



68.7% 



1,507 



1,879 3,160 5,039 3,591 



71.3% 



1,448 



District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 



64 


287 


351 


269 


76.6% 


82 


46 


119 


165 


115 


69.7% 


50 


566 


1,450 


2,016 


1,460 


72.4% 


556 


378 


604 


982 


630 


64.2% 


352 


101 


375 


476 


350 


73.5% 


126 


122 


142 


264 


165 


62.5% 


99 


335 


1,268 


1,603 


1,190 


74.2% 


413 


325 


561 


886 


581 


65.6% 


305 



District Totals 1,066 3,380 4,446 3,269 



73.5% 



1,177 



871 1,426 2,297 



1,491 



64.9% 



806 



)istrict 23 


























Alleghany 


32 


134 


166 


124 


74.7% 


42 


19 


52 


71 


47 


66.2% 


24 


Ashe 


63 


194 


257 


187 


72.8% 


70 


45 


99 


144 


93 


64.6% 


51 


Wilkes 


166 


733 


899 


698 


77.6% 


201 


393 


1,146 


1,539 


1,124 


73.0% 


415 


Yadkin 


92 


308 


400 


272 


68.0% 


128 


117 


169 


286 


161 


56.3% 


125 


District Totals 


353 


1,369 


1,722 


1,281 


74.4% 


441 


574 


1,466 


2,040 


1,425 


69.9% 


615 



201 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 

CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Domestic Relations General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 

Begin End Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



District 24 


























Avery 


93 


172 


265 


153 


57.7% 


112 


62 


104 


166 


91 


54.8% 


75 


Madison 


71 


193 


264 


179 


67.8% 


85 


23 


52 


75 


48 


64.0% 


27 


Mitchell 


76 


151 


227 


172 


75.8% 


55 


27 


89 


116 


84 


72.4% 


32 


Watauga 


118 


326 


444 


300 


67.6% 


144 


162 


323 


485 


361 


74.4% 


124 


Yancey 


48 


156 


204 


141 


69.1% 


63 


19 


65 


84 


59 


70.2% 


25 


District Totals 


406 


998 


1,404 


945 


67.3% 


459 


293 


633 


926 


643 


69.4% 


283 


District 25 


























Burke 


265 


1,049 


1,314 


1,048 


79.8% 


266 


251 


560 


811 


676 


83.4% 


135 


Caldwell 


226 


914 


1,140 


869 


76.2% 


271 


151 


413 


564 


408 


72.3% 


156 


Catawba 


626 


1,814 


2,440 


1,857 


76.1% 


583 


377 


1,017 


1,394 


1,083 


77.7% 


311 



District Totals 1,117 3,777 4,894 3,774 



77.1% 



1,120 



779 1,990 2,769 



2,167 



78.3% 



602 



District 26 

Mecklenburg 2,865 6,535 9,400 6,498 69.1% 2,902 5,554 8,248 13,802 



8,712 63.1% 5,090 



District 27A 












Gaston 


605 


2,986 


3,591 


2,941 


81.9% 


District 27B 












Cleveland 


359 


1,852 


2,211 


1,902 


86.0% 


Lincoln 


118 


677 


795 


649 


81.6% 



309 128 490 618 

146 74 240 314 



465 75.2% 153 

252 80.3% 62 



District Totals 477 2,529 3,006 2,551 



84.9% 



455 



202 730 932 



717 76.9% 215 



District 28 


























Buncombe 


1,000 


2,547 


3,547 


2,561 


72.2% 


986 


856 


1,568 


2,424 


1,730 


71.4% 


694 


District 29 


























Henderson 


289 


741 


1,030 


789 


76.6% 


241 


235 


366 


601 


430 


71.5% 


171 


McDowell 


176 


394 


570 


422 


74.0% 


148 


68 


136 


204 


158 


77.5% 


46 


Polk 


41 


146 


187 


141 


75.4% 


46 


34 


61 


95 


66 


69.5% 


29 


Rutherford 


222 


849 


1,071 


857 


80.0% 


214 


115 


266 


381 


278 


73.0% 


103 


Transylvania 


144 


343 


487 


336 


69.0% 


151 


71 


89 


160 


110 


68.8% 


50 


District Totals 


872 


2,473 


3,345 


2,545 


76.1% 


800 


523 


918 


1,441 


1,042 


72.3% 


399 



202 



District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 



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

July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 



Domestic Relations 



Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 

Begin F.nd 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/91 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/92 



72 


226 


298 


213 


71.5% 


85 


35 


112 


147 


105 


71.4% 


42 


13 


60 


73 


57 


78.1% 


16 


18 


52 


70 


52 


74.3% 


18 


34 


74 


108 


84 


77.8% 


24 


20 


31 


51 


33 


64.7% 


18 


288 


653 


941 


582 


61.8% 


359 


216 


287 


503 


314 


62.4% 


189 


97 


290 


387 


284 


73.4% 


103 


114 


150 


264 


156 


59.1% 


108 


90 


250 


340 


243 


71.5% 


97 


90 


121 


211 


126 


59.7% 


85 


33 


138 


171 


142 


83.0% 


29 


18 


48 


66 


42 


63.6% 


24 


627 


1,691 


2,318 


1,605 


69.2% 


713 


511 


801 


1,312 


828 


63.1% 


484 



State Totals 37,413 93,224 130,637 90,706 



69.4% 39,931 39,247 58,584 97,831 61,279 



62.6% 36,552 



203 



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

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



Judge's Final Order or 

Judgment Without Trial 

(33,770) 



Clerk (26,934) 



Voluntary Dismissal 
(22,526) 




Other (10,927) 



0.2% Trial by Jury (365) 



Trial by Judge (57,463) 



Most civil cases in district court are disposed of by 
judges, either before trial or with a bench (non-jury) 
trial. The "Other" 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. 



204 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1,1991 --June 30, 1992 

Judge's Final 













Order or 












Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 1 


















Camden 


Gen 





1 


4 


2 


6 


4 


17 




Dom 





5 


7 


26 


1 


1 


40 


Chowan 


Gen 


1 


15 


17 


1 


36 


3 


73 




Dom 





62 


10 


84 


1 


10 


167 


Currituck 


Gen 





7 


25 


16 


24 


45 


117 




Dom 





80 


25 


23 








128 


Dare 


Gen 


1 


10 


71 


31 


111 


28 


252 




Dom 





131 


2} 


85 


1 


6 


246 


Gates 


Gen 





1 


7 


28 





6 


42 




Dom 


1 


8 


2 


59 





5 


75 


Pasquotank 


Gen 





14 


45 


11 


83 


21 


174 




Dom 


1 


232 


31 


134 


1 


1 


400 


Perquimans 


Gen 





2 


8 


2 


17 


3 


32 




Dom 





62 


9 


38 





7 


116 


District Totals 


Gen 


2 


50 


177 


91 


277 


110 


707 






0.3% 


7.1% 


25.0% 


12.9% 


39.2% 


15.6% 


100.0% 




Dom 


2 


580 


107 


449 


4 


30 


1,172 






0.2% 


49.5% 


9.1% 


38.3% 


0.3% 


2.6% 


100.0% 


District 2 


















Beaufort 


Gen 


2 


19 


58 


16 


76 


17 


188 




Dom 


1 


270 


11 


333 


2 


10 


627 


Hyde 


Gen 





2 


3 


1 


5 


1 


12 




Dom 


1 


15 





8 








24 


Martin 


Gen 





3 


20 


1 


29 





53 


V 


Dom 





124 


11 


135 


1 


2 


273 


Tyrrell 


Gen 





1 


9 


5 


8 


2 


25 




Dom 





1 


2 


46 





2 


51 


Washington 


Gen 





14 


29 


3 


45 


13 


104 




Dom 





71 


9 


136 





10 


226 


District Totals 


Gen 


2 


39 


119 


26 


163 


33 


382 






0.5% 


10.2% 


31.2% 


6.8% 


42.7% 


8.6% 


100.0% 




Dom 


2 


481 


33 


658 


3 


24 


1,201 






0.2% 


40.0% 


2.7% 


54.8% 


0.2% 


2.0% 


100.0% 


District 3A 


















Pitt 


Gen 


3 


173 


236 


6 


336 


101 


855 






0.4% 


20.2% 


27.6% 


0.7% 


39.3% 


11.8% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


1,239 


79 


6 


2 


40 


1,367 






0.1% 


90.6% 


5.8% 


0.4% 


0.1% 


2.9% 


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, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 













Judge's Final 














Order or 








Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 








Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


District 3B 














Cane ret 


Gen 





51 


106 


48 


100 




Dom 


1 


424 


29 


102 


1 


Craven 


Gen 


3 


48 


155 


125 


223 




Dom 


2 


623 


44 


186 


2 


Pamlico 


Gen 


2 


1 


14 


21 







Dom 





63 


2 


25 





District Totals 


Gen 


5 


100 


275 


194 


323 






0.5% 


9.9% 


27.1% 


19.2% 


31.9% 




Dom 


3 


1,110 


75 


313 


3 






0.2% 


65.8% 


4.4% 


18.6% 


0.2% 


District 4 














Duplin 


Gen 


2 


23 


57 


24 


94 




Dom 


1 


222 


41 


277 





Jones 


Gen 


2 


5 


16 


3 


10 




Dom 





71 


12 


50 





Onslow 


Gen 


2 


189 


364 


32 


193 




Dom 





1,575 


137 


142 


4 


Sampson 


Gen 


1 


15 


134 


19 


112 




Dom 





283 


40 


299 


2 


District Totals 


Gen 


7 


232 


571 


78 


409 






0.4% 


14.0% 


34.5% 


4.7% 


24.7% 




Dom 


1 


2,151 


230 


768 


6 






0.0% 


54.6% 


5.8% 


19.5% 


0.2% 


District 5 

New Hanover 


Gen 


16 


198 


406 


310 


646 




Dom 





1,086 


143 


574 


3 


Pender 


Gen 


1 


43 


59 


22 


54 




Dom 





192 


22 


90 


1 


District Totals 


Gen 


17 


241 


465 


332 


700 






0.9% 


12.5% 


24.0% 


17.2% 


36.2% 




Dom 





1,278 


165 


664 


4 






0.0% 


57.3% 


7.4% 


29.8% 


0.2% 


District 6A 














Halifax 


Gen 


1 


51 


37 


21 


96 






0.5% 


24.5% 


17.8% 


10.1% 


46.2% 




Dom 





277 


15 


852 


3 






0.0% 


23.9% 


1.3% 


73.6% 


0.3% 





Total 


Other 


Disposed 


35 


340 


35 


592 


79 


633 


136 


993 


2 


40 


11 


101 


116 


1,013 


11.5% 


100.0% 


182 


1,686 


10.8% 


100.0% 


6 


206 


40 


581 


6 


42 


27 


160 


340 


1,120 


699 


2,557 


4 


285 


19 


643 


356 


1,653 


21.5% 


100.0% 


785 


3,941 


19.9% 


100.0% 


157 


1,733 


49 


1,855 


23 


202 


69 


374 


180 


1,935 


9.3% 


100.0% 


118 


2,229 


5.3% 


100.0% 


2 


208 


1.0% 


100.0% 


11 


1,158 


0.9% 


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, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 













Judge's Final 


















Order or 












Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 6B 


















Bertie 


Gen 


2 


9 


20 


7 


38 


6 


82 




Dom 


1 


82 


16 


237 





2 


338 


Hertford 


Gen 





36 


23 


47 


4 


4 


114 




Dom 





330 


31 


5 





10 


376 


Northampton 


Gen 





18 


24 


14 


24 


2 


82 




Dom 





126 


22 


238 





10 


396 


District Totals 


Gen 


2 


63 


67 


68 


66 


12 


278 






0.7% 


22.7% 


24.1% 


24.5% 


23.7% 


4.3% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


538 


69 


480 





22 


1,110 






0.1% 


48.5% 


6.2% 


43.2% 


0.0% 


2.0% 


100.0% 


District 7 


















Edgecombe 


Gen 


1 


30 


74 


13 


152 


13 


283 




Dom 





396 


61 


415 





19 


891 


Nash 


Gen 


2 


71 


159 


62 


271 


7 


572 




Dom 





707 


48 


444 


3 


12 


1,214 


Wilson 


Gen 


5 


56 


135 


79 


202 


15 


492 




Dom 





643 


55 


608 


2 


10 


1,318 


District Totals 


Gen 


s 


157 


368 


154 


625 


35 


1,347 






0.6% 


11.7% 


27.3% 


11.4% 


46.4% 


2.6% 


100.0% 




Dom 





1,746 


164 


1,467 


5 


41 


3,423 






0.0% 


51.0% 


4.8% 


42.9% 


0.1% 


1.2% 


100.0% 


District 8 


















Greene 


Gen 





13 


22 


1 


22 


3 


61 




Dom 





60 


6 


73 


1 


5 


145 


Lenoir 


Gen 


7 


40 


122 


65 


149 


21 


404 




Dom 


1 


466 


42 


263 





24 


796 


Wayne 


Gen 


1 


108 


259 


50 


444 


6 


868 




Dom 


1 


1,075 


126 


532 


9 


8 


1,751 


District Totals 


Gen 


8 


161 


403 


116 


615 


30 


1,333 






0.6% 


12.1% 


30.2% 


8.7% 


46.1% 


2.3% 


100.0% 




Dom 


2 


1,601 


174 


868 


10 


37 


2,692 






0.1% 


59.5% 


6.5% 


32.2% 


0.4% 


1.4% 


100.0% 



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

207 



i 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Judge's Final 













Order or 












Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 


District 9 

Franklin 




Jury 


Judge 


Dismiss' 1 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


Gen 





10 


209 


22 


134 


11 


386 




Dom 


2 


128 


43 


219 


6 


34 


432 


Granville 


Gen 


4 


17 


43 


18 


73 


15 


170 




Dom 





145 


32 


221 


1 


40 


439 


Person 


Gen 


1 


5 


47 


19 


80 


10 


162 




Dom 





195 


20 


87 


1 


12 


315 


Vance 


Gen 


1 


42 


72 


8 


127 


24 


274 




Dom 





281 


30 


263 


2 


49 


625 


Warren 


Gen 


1 


11 


13 


5 


26 


6 


62 




Dom 





57 


8 


99 





5 


169 


District Totals 


Gen 


7 


85 


384 


72 


440 


66 


1,054 






0.7% 


8.1% 


36.4% 


6.8% 


41.7% 


6.3% 


100.0% 




Dom 


2 


806 


133 


889 


10 


140 


1,980 






0.1% 


40.7% 


6.7% 


44.9% 


0.5% 


7.1% 


100.0% 


District 10 


















Wake 


Gen 


12 


210 


1,700 


1,070 


3,367 


1,364 


7,723 






0.2% 


2.7% 


22.0% 


13.9% 


43.6% 


17.7% 


100.0% 




Dom 





2,382 


200 


1,995 


11 


919 


5,507 






0.0% 


43.3% 


3.6% 


36.2% 


0.2% 


16.7% 


100.0% 


District 11 


















Harnett 


Gen 


8 


29 


253 


119 


145 


2 


556 




Dom 


2 


430 


95 


300 


5 


8 


840 


Johnston 


Gen 


9 


8 


205 


91 


281 


47 


641 




Dom 





405 


76 


804 





39 


1,324 


Lee 


Gen 


5 


78 


126 


26 


199 


14 


448 




Dom 





371 


70 


176 





10 


627 


District Totals 


Gen 


22 


115 


584 


236 


625 


63 


1,645 






1.3% 


7.0% 


35.5% 


14.3% 


38.0% 


3.8% 


100.0% 




Dom 


2 


1,206 


241 


1,280 


5 


57 


2,791 






0.1% 


43.2% 


8.6% 


45.9% 


0.2% 


2.0% 


100.0% 


District 12 


















Cumberland 


Gen 


4 


252 


308 


95 


702 


278 


1,639 






0.2% 


15.4% 


18.8% 


5.8% 


42.8% 


17.0% 


100.0% 




Dom 





3,503 


301 


1,063 


6 


192 


5,065 






0.0% 


69.2% 


5.9% 


21.0% 


0.1% 


3.8% 


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, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 













Judge's Final 


















Order or 












Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 13 


















Bladen 


Gen 





50 


85 


21 


159 


4 


319 




Dom 





148 


25 


131 


1 


7 


312 


Brunswick 


Gen 


1 


57 


130 


35 


120 


46 


389 




Dom 





330 


90 


148 


2 


49 


619 


Columbus 


Gen 


12 


61 


151 


51 


108 


21 


404 




Dom 





363 


84 


302 





55 


804 


District Totals 


Gen 


13 


168 


366 


107 


387 


71 


1,112 






1.2% 


15.1% 


32.9% 


9.6% 


34.8% 


6.4% 


100.0% 




Dom 





841 


199 


581 


3 


111 


1,735 






0.0% 


48.5% 


11.5% 


33.5% 


0.2% 


6.4% 


100.0% 


District 14 


















Durham 


Gen 


2 


29 


535 


174 


1,049 


150 


1,939 






0.1% 


1.5% 


27.6% 


9.0% 


54.1% 


7.7% 


100.0% 




Dom 





1,195 


347 


1,380 





152 


3,074 






0.0% 


38.9% 


1 1 .3% 


44.9% 


0.0% 


4.9% 


100.0% 


District 15A 


















Alamance 


Gen 


3 


59 


310 


62 


608 


37 


1,079 






0.3% 


5.5% 


28.7% 


5.7% 


56.3% 


3.4% 


100.0% 




Dom 





835 


93 


296 


10 


63 


1,297 






0.0% 


64.4% 


7.2% 


22.8% 


0.8% 


4.9% 


100.0% 


District 15B 


















Chatham 


Gen 


1 


11 


29 


14 


61 


7 


123 




Dom 





148 


16 


224 


44 


55 


487 


Orange 


Gen 


1 


174 


207 


11 


237 


29 


659 




Dom 





545 


41 


187 


1 


8 


782 


District Totals 


Gen 


2 


185 


236 


25 


298 


36 


782 






0.3% 


23.7% 


30.2% 


3.2% 


38.1% 


4.6% 


100.0% 




Dom 





693 


57 


411 


45 


63 


1,269 






0.0% 


54.6% 


4.5% 


32.4% 


3.5% 


5.0% 


100.0% 


District 16A 


















Hoke 


Gen 





20 


37 





41 





98 




Dom 





104 


38 


155 


1 


3 


301 


Scotland 


Gen 





33 


76 


16 


116 


26 


267 




Dom 





196 


69 


311 





18 


594 


District Totals 


Gen 





53 


113 


16 


157 


26 


365 






0.0% 


14.5% 


31.0% 


4.4% 


43.0% 


7.1% 


100.0% 




Dom 





300 


107 


466 


1 


21 


895 






0.0% 


33.5% 


12.0% 


52.1% 


0.1% 


2.3% 


100.0% 



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

209 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Judge's Final 



District 16B 

Robeson 



Gen 



Dom 



District 17A 

Caswell Gen 

Dom 

Rockingham Gen 
Dom 

District Totals Gen 

Dom 



District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 



Gen 
Dom 
Gen 
Dom 



District Totals Gen 



Dom 



District 18 

Guilford 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 



Gen 
Dom 

Gen 
Dom 



Trial by 
Jury 

2 

0.3% 


0.0% 





4 


4 
0.8% 


0.0% 







10 

1 

10 

1.9% 

1 
0.1% 



19 
0.4% 

1 
0.0% 



4 
0.4% 

3 
0.3% 



Order or 
Trial by Voluntary Judgment 

Judge Dismissal Without Trial 



188 166 

23.7% 21.0% 

844 137 

44.0% 7.1% 



9 18 

104 6 

43 100 

533 94 

52 118 

10.3% 23.3% 

637 100 

53.7% 8.4% 



17 34 

147 18 

39 106 

366 52 

56 140 

10.6% 26.5% 

513 70 

54.5% 7.4% 



515 1,643 

9.9% 31.7% 

3,876 232 

73.8% 4.4% 



48 211 

5.3% 23.4% 
520 54 

46.6% 4.8% 



Clerk 



41 


344 


5.2% 


43.4% 


835 


17 


43.5% 


0.9% 


5 


15 


80 





12 


241 


286 


2 


17 


256 


3.4% 


50.6% 


366 


2 


30.9% 


0.2% 


8 


38 


91 


1 


46 


213 


257 


1 


54 


251 


10.2% 


47.4% 


348 


2 


36.9% 


0.2% 


274 


2,207 


5.3% 


42.5% 


561 


10 


10.7% 


0.2% 


100 


472 


11.1% 


52.3% 


489 


1 


43.8% 


0.1% 





Total 


Other 


Disposed 


51 


792 


6.4% 


100.0% 


86 


1,919 


4.5% 


100.0% 


19 


66 


14 


204 


40 


440 


67 


982 


59 


506 


11.7% 


100.0% 


81 


1,186 


6.8% 


100.0% 


6 


103 


7 


264 


12 


426 


1 


678 


18 


529 


3.4% 


100.0% 


8 


942 


0.8% 


100.0% 


531 


5,189 


10.2% 


100.0% 


573 


5,253 


10.9% 


100.0% 


67 


902 


7.4% 


100.0% 


50 


1,117 


4.5% 


100.0% 



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

210 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 













Judge's Final 


















Order or 












Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 19B 


















Montgomery 


Gen 





12 


52 


3 


89 





156 




Dom 





269 


}2 





1 





302 


Randolph 


Gen 


4 


52 


103 


45 


263 


9 


476 




Dom 





567 


60 


237 





34 


898 


District Totals 


Gen 


4 


64 


155 


48 


352 


9 


632 






0.6% 


10.1% 


24.5% 


7.6% 


55.7% 


1.4% 


100.0% 




Dom 





836 


92 


237 


1 


34 


1,200 






0.0% 


69.7% 


7.7% 


19.8% 


0.1% 


2.8% 


100.0% 


District 19C 


















Rowan 


Gen 


1 


41 


259 


79 


305 


34 


719 






0.1% 


5.7% 


36.0% 


11.0% 


42.4% 


4.7% 


100.0% 




Dom 





587 


135 


448 


2 


60 


1,232 






0.0% 


47.6% 


1 1 .0% 


36.4% 


0.2% 


4.9% 


100.0% 


District 20 


















Anson 


Gen 


2 


4 


36 


15 


43 


1 


101 




Dom 


1 


113 


24 


159 


2 


3 


302 


Moore 


Gen 


2 


73 


96 


14 


117 


29 


331 




Dom 





347 


34 


203 


1 


10 


595 


Richmond 


Gen 


3 


20 


43 


20 


130 


3 


219 




Dom 





312 


17 


260 


8 


32 


629 


Stanly 


Gen 





31 


83 


4 


224 


3 


345 




Dom 





291 


22 


250 


1 


3 


567 


Union 


Gen 


8 


147 


121 


11 


173 


2 


462 


*■ 


Dom 


1 


647 


42 


193 





4 


887 


District Totals 


Gen 


15 


275 


379 


64 


687 


38 


1,458 






1.0% 


18.9% 


26.0% 


4.4% 


47.1% 


2.6% 


100.0% 




Dom 


2 


1,710 


139 


1,065 


12 


52 


2,980 






0.1% 


57.4% 


4.7% 


35.7% 


0.4% 


1.7% 


100.0% 


District 21 


















Forsyth 


Gen 


9 


181 


915 


330 


1,829 


327 


3,591 






0.3% 


5.0% 


25.5% 


9.2% 


50.9% 


9.1% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


2,178 


160 


862 


3 


111 


3,315 






0.0% 


65.7% 


4.8% 


26.0% 


0.1% 


3.3% 


100.0% 



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

211 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

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 


s 


38 


5 


61 


2 


115 




Dom 


1 


146 


15 


93 


1 


13 


269 


Davidson 


Gen 


9 


68 


166 


39 


320 


28 


630 




Dom 





736 


78 


591 


4 


51 


1,460 


Davie 


Gen 


3 


27 


67 


10 


46 


12 


165 




Dom 


1 


185 


36 


120 


1 


7 


350 


Iredell 


Gen 


9 


78 


177 


29 


241 


47 


581 




Dom 


1 


572 


58 


469 


1 


89 


1,190 


District Totals 


Gen 


22 


181 


448 


83 


668 


89 


1,491 






1.5% 


12.1% 


30.0% 


5.6% 


44.8% 


6.0% 


100.0% 




Dom 


3 


1,639 


187 


1,273 


7 


160 


3,269 






0.1% 


50.1% 


5.7% 


38.9% 


0.2% 


4.9% 


100.0% 


District 23 


















Alleghany 


Gen 


1 


3 


15 


7 


15 


6 


47 




Dom 





62 


13 


42 





7 


124 


Ashe 


Gen 


1 


14 


17 


17 


42 


2 


93 




Dom 





103 


14 


70 








187 


Wilkes 


Gen 





144 


145 


9 


821 


5 


1,124 




Dom 





535 


42 


112 


1 


8 


698 


Yadkin 


Gen 


1 


9 


63 


7 


80 


1 


161 




Dom 





147 


15 


97 





13 


272 


District Totals 


Gen 


3 


170 


240 


40 


958 


14 


1,425 






0.2% 


11.9% 


16.8% 


2.8% 


67.2% 


1.0% 


100.0% 




Dom 





847 


84 


321 


1 


28 


1,281 






0.0% 


66.1% 


6.6% 


25.1% 


0.1% 


2.2% 


100.0% 


District 24 


















Avery 


Gen 





12 


22 


4 


32 


21 


91 




Dom 





85 


11 


45 





12 


153 


Madison 


Gen 


1 


4 


10 


6 


24 


3 


48 




Dom 





84 


22 


64 





9 


179 


Mitchell 


Gen 





6 


19 


5 


45 


9 


84 




Dom 





110 


21 


34 





7 


172 


Watauga 


Gen 





23 


140 


62 


110 


26 


361 




Dom 


1 


188 


30 


65 





16 


300 


Yancey 


Gen 





8 


21 


6 


22 


2 


59 




Dom 





74 


10 


47 





10 


141 


District Totals 


Gen 


1 


53 


212 


83 


233 


61 


643 






0.2% 


8.2% 


33.0% 


12.9% 


36.2% 


9.5% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


541 


94 


255 





54 


945 






0.1% 


57.2% 


9.9% 


27.0% 


0.0% 


5.7% 


100.0% 



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

212 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 













Judge's Final 


















Order or 












Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


Without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 25 


















Burke 


Gen 


7 


54 


202 


57 


299 


57 


676 




Dom 




511 


104 


395 


1 


36 


1,048 


Caldwell 


Gen 




54 


121 


51 


171 


10 


408 




Dom 




559 


35 


264 





10 


869 


Catawba 


Gen 


11 


54 


273 


239 


461 


45 


1,083 




Dom 




978 


112 


732 


2 


32 


1,857 


District Totals 


Gen 


19 


162 


596 


347 


931 


112 


2,167 






0.9% 


7.5% 


27.5% 


16.0% 


43.0% 


5.2% 


100.0% 




Dom 


3 


2,048 


251 


1,391 


3 


78 


3,774 






0.1% 


54.3% 


6.7% 


36.9% 


0.1% 


2.1% 


100.0% 


District 26 


















Mecklenburg 


Gen 


25 


1,232 


2,810 


723 


3,717 


205 


8,712 






0.3% 


14.1% 


32.3% 


8.3% 


42.7% 


2.4% 


100.0% 




Dom 


4 


4,369 


313 


1,389 


23 


400 


6,498 






0.1% 


67.2% 


4.8% 


21.4% 


0.4% 


6.2% 


100.0% 


District 27A 


















Gaston 


Gen 


16 


48 


243 


289 


468 


93 


1,157 






1.4% 


4.1% 


21.0% 


25.0% 


40.4% 


8.0% 


100.0% 




Dom 





1,549 


144 


1,156 


3 


89 


2,941 






0.0% 


52.7% 


4.9% 


39.3% 


0.1% 


3.0% 


100.0% 


District 27B 


















Cleveland 


Gen 


6 


42 


109 


48 


196 


64 


465 




Dom 





1,098 


106 


358 





340 


1,902 


Lincoln 


Gen 


4 


32 


60 


44 


103 


9 


252 




Dom 





390 


36 


218 


3 


2 


649 


District Totals 


Gen 


10 


74 


169 


92 


299 


73 


717 






1.4% 


10.3% 


23.6% 


12.8% 


41.7% 


10.2% 


100.0% 




Dom 





1,488 


142 


576 


3 


342 


2,551 






0.0% 


58.3% 


5.6% 


22.6% 


0.1% 


13.4% 


100.0% 


District 28 


















Buncombe 


Gen 


17 


330 


402 


57 


726 


198 


1,730 






1.0% 


19.1% 


23.2% 


3.3% 


42.0% 


11.4% 


100.0% 




Dom 


2 


1,931 


179 


122 


14 


313 


2,561 






0.1% 


75.4% 


7.0% 


4.8% 


0.5% 


12.2% 


100.0% 



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

213 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON- MAGISTRATE) CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 
July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

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 


46 


146 


87 


130 


18 


430 




Dom 


3 


454 


77 


192 





63 


789 


McDowell 


Gen 


3 


6 


33 


15 


92 


9 


158 




Dom 





245 


29 


122 


2 


24 


422 


Polk 


Gen 





12 


18 


8 


19 


9 


66 




Dom 


3 


105 


9 


9 


3 


12 


141 


Rutherford 


Gen 


1 


44 


56 


13 


134 


30 


278 




Dom 


1 


508 


45 


251 


1 


51 


857 


Transylvania 


Gen 


2 


8 


26 


24 


42 


8 


110 




Dom 





155 


35 


135 


2 


9 


336 


District Totals 


Gen 


9 


116 


279 


147 


417 


74 


1,042 






0.9% 


11.1% 


26.8% 


14.1% 


40.0% 


7.1% 


100.0% 




Dom 


7 


1,467 


195 


709 


8 


159 


2,545 






0.3% 


57.6% 


7.7% 


27.9% 


0.3% 


6.2% 


100.0% 


District 30 


















Cherokee 


Gen 





25 


21 


12 


43 


4 


105 




Dom 


1 


112 


15 


64 





21 


213 


Clay 


Gen 





3 


14 


11 


22 


2 


52 




Dom 





15 


4 


37 


1 





57 


Graham 


Gen 





7 


10 


2 


12 


2 


33 




Dom 


1 


59 


10 


14 








84 


Haywood 


Gen 


3 


66 


80 


24 


132 


9 


314 




Dom 





354 


57 


161 





10 


582 


Jackson 


Gen 


2 


4 


45 


22 


64 


19 


156 




Dom 





49 


46 


165 


2 


22 


284 


Macon 


Gen 


2 


10 


51 


17 


36 


10 


126 




Dom 


1 


130 


21 


78 





13 


243 


Swain 


Gen 


1 


3 


7 


12 


16 


3 


42 




Dom 





75 


9 


51 





7 


142 


District Totals 


Gen 


8 


118 


228 


100 


325 


49 


828 






1.0% 


14.3% 


27.5% 


12.1% 


39.3% 


5.9% 


100.0% 




Dom 


3 


794 


162 


570 


3 


73 


1,605 






0.2% 


49.5% 


10.1% 


35.5% 


0.2% 


4.5% 


100.0% 


State Totals 


Gen 


318 


6,327 


16,867 


5,911 


26,688 


5,168 


61,279 






0.5% 


10.3% 


27.5% 


9.6% 


43.6% 


8.4% 


100.0% 




Dom 


47 


51,136 


5,659 


27,859 


246 


5,759 


90,706 






0.1% 


56.4% 


6.2% 


30.7% 


0.3% 


6.3% 


100.0% 



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

214 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 



9 
36 

46 

(.1 

30 
104 

19 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



Vc 

39.1% 
63.2% 
55.4% 
42.7% 
61.2% 
35.0% 
21.8% 



6-12 



16 

23 

4 

53 

13 



% 

8.7% 
14.0% 
19.3% 
16.1% 

8.2% 
17.8% 
14.9% 



>12 

12 
13 
21 
59 

15 

140 

55 



52.2% 
22.8% 
25.3% 
41.3% 
30.6% 
47.1% 
63.2% 



Total 
Pending 

23 
57 
83 

143 
49 

297 
87 



Mean 

Age (Days) 

485.1 
295.4 
294.9 
452.1 
242.3 
478.1 
991.9 



Median 

Age (Days) 

369.0 
126.0 
144.0 
253.0 
123.0 
341.0 
481.0 



District Totals 



305 



41.3% 



119 



16.1% 



315 



42.6% 



739 



483.5 



265.0 



District 2 

Beaufort 
Hyde 

Martin 
Tyrrell 
Washington 



95 


27.3% 


13 


39.4% 


70 


29.7% 


7 


38.9% 


30 


57.7% 



50 


14.4% 


203 


58.3% 


348 


7 


21.2% 


13 


39.4% 


33 


IS 


7.6% 


148 


62.7% 


236 


4 


22.2% 


7 


38.9% 


18 


13 


25.0% 


9 


17.3% 


52 



689.8 
412.2 
789.6 
443.7 
193.7 



513.0 
245.0 
520.0 
276.0 
91.0 



District Totals 



215 



31.3% 



92 



13.4% 



380 



55.3% 



687 



666.8 



440.0 



District 3A 

Pitt 



293 



63.7% 



103 



22.4% 



64 



13.9% 



460 



174.4 



104.0 



District 3B 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 



182 

227 

29 



79.1% 
61.0% 

76.3% 



28 


12.2% 


82 


22.0% 


5 


13.2% 



20 


8.7% 


230 


63 


16.9% 


372 


4 


10.5% 


38 



132.5 
191.3 
173.8 



71.0 
130.5 
106.0 



District Totals 



438 



68.4% 



115 



18.0% 



87 



13.6% 



640 



169.1 



95.0 



District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 



101 

28 

464 

136 



69.2% 
59.6% 
45.3% 
64.5% 



30 

7 

232 
29 



20.5% 
14.9% 
22.6% 
13.7% 



15 

12 
329 

46 



10.3% 
25.5% 
32.1% 

21.8% 



146 

47 

1,025 

211 



158.9 
234.1 
315.7 
212.3 



85.0 
112.0 
221.0 

91.0 



District Totals 



729 



51.0% 



298 



20.9% 



402 



28.1% 



1,429 



281.7 



172.0 



District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 



292 

48 



57.1% 
55.8% 



102 
24 



20.0% 
27.9% 



117 
14 



22.9% 
16.3% 



511 

86 



237.6 
194.3 



144.0 
162.5 



District Totals 



340 



57. 



126 



21.1% 



131 



21.9% 



597 



231.3 



145.0 



District 6A 

Halifax 



313 



86.0% 



34 



9.3% 



17 



4.7% 



364 



103.5 



69.0 



215 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 







Ages 


of Pending Cases (Months) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


40 


44.9% 


25 


28.1% 


24 


27.0% 


89 


262.2 


207.0 


Hertford 


49 


42.6% 


33 


28.7% 


33 


28.7% 


115 


256.3 


221.0 


Northampton 


54 


91.5% 


2 


3.4% 


3 


5.1% 


59 


88.8 


49.0 


District Totals 


143 


54.4% 


60 


22.8% 


60 


22.8% 


263 


220.7 


158.0 


District 7 




















Edgecombe 


195 


57.7% 


61 


18.0% 


82 


24.3% 


338 


322.7 


132.0 


Nash 


251 


54.8% 


58 


12.7% 


149 


32.5% 


458 


323.0 


156.5 


Wilson 


306 


82.9% 


40 


10.8% 


23 


6.2% 


369 


125.8 


62.0 


District Totals 


752 


64.5% 


159 


13.6% 


254 


21.8% 


1,165 


260.4 


97.0 


District 8 




















Greene 


30 


85.7% 


2 


5.7% 


3 


8.6% 


35 


146.0 


50.0 


Lenoir 


142 


75.1% 


28 


14.8% 


19 


10.1% 


189 


152.3 


84.0 


Wayne 


347 


51.9% 


105 


15.7% 


216 


32.3% 


668 


253.4 


165.0 


District Totals 


519 


58.2% 


135 


15.1% 


238 


26.7% 


892 


227.8 


124.5 


District 9 




















Franklin 


103 


55.1% 


45 


24.1% 


39 


20.9% 


187 


236.0 


151.0 


Granville 


88 


56.1% 


39 


24.8% 


30 


19.1% 


157 


228.4 


151.0 


Person 


58 


55.2% 


22 


21.0% 


25 


23.8% 


105 


214.3 


144.0 


Vance 


109 


55.3% 


51 


25.9% 


37 


18.8% 


197 


240.0 


140.0 


Warren 


63 


44.1% 


47 


32.9% 


33 


23.1% 


143 


270.6 


211.0 


District Totals 


421 


53.4% 


204 


25.9% 


164 


20.8% 


789 


238.9 


158.0 


District 10 




















Wake 


1,198 


23.9% 


643 


12.8% 


3,166 


63.2% 


5,007 


724.9 


540.0 


District 11 




















Harnett 


185 


65.6% 


68 


24.1% 


29 


10.3% 


282 


166.7 


118.5 


Johnston 


280 


71.2% 


72 


18.3% 


41 


10.4% 


393 


141.5 


85.0 


Lee 


186 


62.0% 


64 


21.3% 


50 


16.7% 


300 


179.8 


141.0 


District Totals 


651 


66.8% 


204 


20.9% 


120 


12.3% 


975 


160.6 


111.0 


District 12 




















Cumberland 


1,275 


43.3% 


540 


18.3% 


1,131 


38.4% 


2,946 


330.9 


245.5 


District 13 




















Bladen 


93 


67.4% 


23 


16.7% 


22 


15.9% 


138 


172.1 


71.0 


Brunswick 


136 


43.3% 


53 


16.9% 


125 


39.8% 


314 


346.6 


247.5 


Columbus 


112 


46.9% 


45 


18.8% 


82 


34.3% 


239 


268.7 


209.0 


District Totals 


341 


49.3% 


121 


17.5% 


229 


33.1% 


691 


284.8 


193.0 



216 



<6 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



% 



District 14 






Durham 


598 


49.8% 


District ISA 






Alamance 


261 


54.0% 


District 15B 






Chatham 


101 


47.4% 


Orange 


180 


33.3% 


District Totals 


281 


37.3% 


District 16A 






Hoke 


72 


65.5% 


Scotland 


108 


53.7% 


District Totals 


180 


57.9% 


District 16B 






Robeson 


424 


49.5% 


District 17A 






Caswell 


30 


41.7% 


Rockingham 


177 


68.1% 


District Totals 


207 


62.3% 


District 17B 






Stokes 


62 


56.9% 


Surry 


139 


54.9% 


District Totals 


201 


55.5% 


District 18 






Guilford 


1,501 


41.0% 


District 19A 






Cabarrus 


203 


77.5% 


District 19B 






Montgomery 


145 


35.9% 


Randolph 


203 


46.3% 


District Totals 


348 


41.3% 


District 19C 






Rowan 


228 


71.9% 



6-12 



291 



102 



147 

14 
45 

59 
116 



19 
49 

68 



15 
30 

45 



679 



45 



98 
90 



% 



24.2% 



21.1 % 



19.5% 

12.7% 
22.4% 

19.0% 



49 



26.4% 
18.8% 

20.5% 



13.8% 
11.9% 

12.4% 



18.5% 

17.2% 

24.3% 
20.5% 

22.3% 

15.5% 



>12 



313 



120 



326 



32 
84 

116 



14 



161 
145 

306 



40 



% 



26.0% 



24.8% 



43.2% 



24 21.8% 

48 23.9% 

72 23.2% 



13.5% 317 37.0% 



23 31.9% 

34 13.1% 

57 17.2% 



29.4% 
33.2% 

32.0% 



1,483 40.5% 



5.3% 



39.9% 
33.1% 

36.3% 



12.6% 



Total 
Pending 

1,202 



483 



51 


23.9% 


61 


28.6% 


213 


96 


17.7% 


265 


49.0% 


541 



754 

110 

201 

311 
857 



72 
260 

332 



109 
253 

362 



3,663 



262 



404 
438 

842 



317 



Mean 

Age (Days) 

252.5 



255.3 



273.1 
428.2 

384.4 



215.6 
263.2 

246.3 



408.3 

348.5 
175.0 

212.6 



268.7 
407.9 

366.0 



479.2 



115.8 



360.8 
377.0 

369.2 



150.2 



Median 
Age (Days) 

186.0 



141.0 

200.0 
350.0 

306.0 



127.0 
152.0 

138.0 



197.0 

266.5 
102.0 

118.0 



148.0 
141.0 

142.5 



270.0 



69.0 



295.0 
213.5 

255.5 



67.0 



217 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 







Ages 


ofPendi 


ng Cases (Mc 


inths) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 20 




















Anson 


77 


33.2% 


43 


18.5% 


112 


48.3% 


232 


587.4 


355.0 


Moore 


167 


38.6% 


75 


17.3% 


191 


44.1% 


433 


446.8 


295.0 


Richmond 


139 


37.3% 


58 


15.5% 


176 


47.2% 


373 


410.3 


326.0 


Stanly 


152 


42.3% 


48 


13.4% 


159 


44.3% 


359 


372.5 


315.0 


Union 


137 


46.4% 


42 


14.2% 


116 


39.3% 


295 


371.6 


210.0 


District Totals 


672 


39.7% 


266 


15.7% 


754 


44.6% 


1,692 


429.1 


300.0 


District 21 




















Forsyth 


817 


54.2% 


269 


17.9% 


421 


27.9% 


1,507 


267.7 


153.0 


District 22 




















Alexander 


46 


56.1% 


12 


14.6% 


24 


29.3% 


82 


378.7 


138.5 


Davidson 


257 


46.2% 


92 


16.5% 


207 


37.2% 


556 


330.2 


241.0 


Davie 


62 


49.2% 


41 


32.5% 


23 


18.3% 


126 


236.6 


183.0 


Iredell 


198 


47.9% 


92 


22.3% 


123 


29.8% 


413 


287.2 


200.0 


District Totals 


563 


47.8% 


237 


20.1% 


377 


32.0% 


1,177 


308.4 


208.0 


District 23 




















Alleghany 


29 


69.0% 


9 


21.4% 


4 


9.5% 


42 


152.2 


100.0 


Ashe 


43 


61.4% 


10 


14.3% 


17 


24.3% 


70 


254.8 


133.5 


Wilkes 


132 


65.7% 


44 


21.9% 


25 


12.4% 


201 


176.0 


95.0 


Yadkin 


65 


50.8% 


23 


18.0% 


40 


31.3% 


128 


331.0 


171.0 


District Totals 


269 


61.0% 


86 


19.5% 


86 


19.5% 


441 


231.2 


123.0 


District 24 




















Avery 


37 


33.0% 


20 


17.9% 


55 


49.1% 


112 


589.3 


355.5 


Madison 


55 


64.7% 


6 


7.1% 


24 


28.2% 


85 


275.8 


102.0 


Mitchell 


29 


52.7% 


4 


7.3% 


22 


40.0% 


55 


541.3 


118.0 


Watauga 


86 


59.7% 


25 


17.4% 


33 


22.9% 


144 


252.4 


136.0 


Yancey 


43 


68.3% 


7 


11.1% 


13 


20.6% 


63 


192.6 


76.0 


District Totals 


250 


54.5% 


62 


13.5% 


147 


32.0% 


459 


365.4 


144.0 


District 25 




















Burke 


202 


75.9% 


37 


13.9% 


27 


10.2% 


266 


138.3 


79.0 


Caldwell 


133 


49.1% 


43 


15.9% 


95 


35.1% 


271 


273.1 


207.0 


Catawba 


320 


54.9% 


116 


19.9% 


147 


25.2% 


583 


246.5 


155.0 


District Totals 


655 


58.5% 


196 


17.5% 


269 


24.0% 


1,120 


227.2 


130.0 


District 26 




















Mecklenburg 


1,468 


50.6% 


573 


19.7% 


861 


29.7% 


2,902 


266.4 


176.0 


District 27A 




















Gaston 


44 ] 


67.8% 


126 


19.4% 


83 


12.8% 


650 


157.1 


78.0 



218 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 









Ages of Pending 


Cases (Months) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


289 


93.5% 


18 


5.8% 


2 


0.6% 


309 


72.5 


50.0 


Lincoln 


133 


91.1% 


12 


8.2% 


1 


0.7% 


146 


82.9 


53.5 


District Totals 


422 


92.7% 


30 


6.6% 


3 


0.7% 


455 


75.8 


53.0 


District 28 




















Buncombe 


579 


58.7% 


175 


17.7% 


232 


23.5% 


986 


278.1 


134.0 


District 29 




















Henderson 


167 


69.3% 


42 


17.4% 


32 


13.3% 


241 


170.8 


98.0 


McDowell 


75 


50.7% 


26 


17.6% 


47 


31.8% 


148 


285.1 


180.0 


Polk 


26 


56.5% 


10 


21.7% 


10 


21.7% 


46 


238.2 


115.0 


Rutherford 


131 


61.2% 


24 


11.2% 


59 


27.6% 


214 


231.2 


104.5 


Transylvania 


64 


42.4% 


29 


19.2% 


58 


38.4% 


151 


474.0 


274.0 


District Totals 


463 


57.9% 


131 


16.4% 


206 


25.8% 


800 


269.2 


132.5 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


43 


50.6% 


14 


16.5% 


28 


32.9% 


85 


581.3 


174.0 


Clay 


10 


62.5% 


3 


18.8% 


3 


18.8% 


16 


195.8 


80.0 


Graham 


14 


58.3% 


7 


29.2% 


3 


12.5% 


24 


197.1 


122.0 


Haywood 


150 


41.8% 


39 


10.9% 


170 


47.4% 


359 


515.9 


322.0 


Jackson 


66 


64.1% 


16 


15.5% 


21 


20.4% 


103 


236.9 


126.0 


Macon 


67 


69.1% 


13 


13.4% 


17 


17.5% 


97 


259.1 


119.0 


Swain 


22 


75.9% 


4 


13.8% 


3 


10.3% 


29 


199.7 


78.0 


District Totals 


372 


52.2% 


96 


13.5% 


245 


34.4% 


713 


417.7 


169.0 


State Totals . 


19,336 


48.4% 


6,989 


17.5% 


13,606 


34.1% 


39,931 


363.1 


202.0 



219 



i 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 







Ages 


of Disposed Cases (Months) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 1 




















Camden 


:? 


57.5% 


7 


17.5% 


10 


25.0% 


40 


406.0 


118.0 


Chowan 


140 


83.8% 


5 


3.0% 


22 


13.2% 


167 


129.1 


33.0 


Currituck 


89 


69.5% 


18 


14.1% 


21 


16.4% 


128 


214.2 


87.0 


Dare 


200 


81.3% 


27 


11.0% 


19 


7.7% 


246 


129.2 


56.0 


Gates 


61 


81.3% 


10 


13.3% 


4 


5.3% 


75 


93.3 


45.0 


Pasquotank 


322 


80.5% 


41 


10.3% 


37 


9.3% 


400 


123.5 


60.0 


Perquimans 


91 


78.4% 


13 


11.2% 


12 


10.3% 


116 


164.6 


61.5 


District Totals 


926 


79.0% 


121 


10.3% 


125 


10.7% 


1,172 


147.1 


58.0 


District 2 




















Beaufort 


581 


92.7% 


26 


4.1% 


20 


3.2% 


627 


63.1 


13.0 


Hyde 


22 


91.7% 


1 


4.2% 


1 


4.2% 


24 


82.9 


39.0 


Martin 


251 


91.9% 


13 


4.8% 


9 


3.3% 


273 


56.1 


7.0 


Tyrrell 


44 


86.3% 


3 


5.9% 


4 


7.8% 


51 


92.5 


14.0 


Washington 


186 


82.3% 


22 


9.7% 


18 


8.0% 


226 


116.6 


12.5 


District Totals 


1,084 


90.3% 


65 


5.4% 


52 


4.3% 


1,201 


73.2 


13.0 


District 3A 




















Pitt 


1,229 


89.9% 


104 


7.6% 


34 


2.5% 


1,367 


72.4 


46.0 


District 3B 




















Carteret 


483 


81.6% 


60 


10.1% 


49 


8.3% 


592 


111.0 


54.0 


Craven 


815 


82.1% 


92 


9.3% 


86 


8.7% 


993 


112.4 


55.0 


Pamlico 


75 


74.3% 


14 


13.9% 


12 


11.9% 


101 


143.2 


56.0 


District Totals 


1,373 


81.4% 


166 


9.8% 


147 


8.7% 


1,686 


113.7 


54.0 


District 4 




















Duplin 


440 


75.7% 


67 


11.5% 


74 


12.7% 


581 


152.1 


57.0 


Jones 


119 


74.4% 


23 


14.4% 


18 


11.3% 


160 


164.6 


49.5 


Onslow 


1,632 


63.8% 


212 


8.3% 


713 


27.9% 


2,557 


352.9 


91.0 


Sampson 


552 


85.8% 


56 


8.7% 


35 


5.4% 


643 


85.5 


42.0 


District Totals 


2,743 


69.6% 


358 


9.1% 


840 


21.3% 


3,941 


272.0 


69.0 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


1,536 


82.8% 


139 


7.5% 


180 


9.7% 


1,855 


108.6 


46.0 


Pender 


274 


73.3% 


54 


14.4% 


46 


12.3% 


374 


144.1 


66.5 


District Totals 


1,810 


81.2% 


193 


8.7% 


226 


10.1% 


2,229 


114.5 


49.0 


District 6A 




















Halifax 


987 


85.2% 


133 


11.5% 


38 


3.3% 


1,158 


85.1 


50.0 



220 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 







Ages 


of Disposed 


Cases (Mor 


iths) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


253 


74.9% 


42 


12.4% 


43 


12.7% 


338 


131.8 


44.0 


Hertford 


286 


76.1% 


50 


13.3% 


40 


10.6% 


376 


117.9 


41.5 


Northampton 


295 


74.5% 


53 


13.4% 


48 


12.1% 


396 


126.6 


40.0 


District Totals 


834 


15. \% 


145 


13.1% 


131 


11.8% 


1,110 


125.2 


42.0 


District 7 

Edgecombe 


763 


85.6% 


92 


10.3% 


36 


4.0% 


891 


80.2 


38.0 


Nash 


1,040 


85.7% 


90 


7.4% 


84 


6.9% 


1,214 


126.0 


45.0 


Wilson 


1,184 


89.8% 


90 


6.8% 


44 


3.3% 


1,318 


67.0 


35.0 


District Totals 


2,987 


87.3% 


272 


7.9% 


164 


4.8% 


3,423 


91.3 


41.0 


District 8 




















Greene 


126 


86.9% 


14 


9.7% 


5 


3.4% 


145 


71.9 


37.0 


Lenoir 


685 


86.1% 


87 


10.9% 


24 


3.0% 


796 


82.4 


41.0 


Wayne 


1,423 


81.3% 


171 


9.8% 


157 


9.0% 


1,751 


115.2 


55.0 


District Totals 


2,234 


83.0% 


272 


10.1% 


186 


6.9% 


2,692 


103.1 


49.0 


District 9 




















Franklin 


340 


78.7% 


31 


7.2% 


61 


14.1% 


432 


133.2 


45.5 


Granville 


350 


79.7% 


35 


8.0% 


54 


12.3% 


439 


119.0 


47.0 


Person 


279 


88.6% 


22 


7.0% 


14 


4.4% 


315 


77.1 


40.0 


Vance 


508 


81.3% 


53 


8.5% 


64 


10.2% 


625 


106.8 


39.0 


Warren 


139 


82.2% 


17 


10.1% 


13 


7.7% 


169 


94.8 


40.0 


District Totals 


1,616 


81.6% 


158 


8.0% 


206 


10.4% 


1,980 


109.5 


42.0 


District 10 




















Wake 


3,491 


63.4% 


176 


3.2% 


1,840 


33.4% 


5,507 


522.8 


63.0 


District 11 




















Hamett 


667 


79.4% 


65 


7.7% 


108 


12.9% 


840 


112.4 


49.0 


Johnston 


1,239 


93.6% 


62 


4.7% 


23 


1.7% 


1,324 


55.9 


36.0 


Lee 


492 


78.5% 


69 


11.0% 


66 


10.5% 


627 


112.4 


49.0 


District Totals 


2,398 


85.9% 


196 


7.0% 


197 


7.1% 


2,791 


85.6 


42.0 


District 12 




















Cumberland 


4,188 


82.7% 


442 


8.7% 


435 


8.6% 


5,065 


125.6 


58.0 


District 13 




















Bladen 


277 


88.8% 


14 


4.5% 


21 


6.7% 


312 


79.4 


21.5 


Brunswick 


466 


75.3% 


36 


5.8% 


117 


18.9% 


619 


193.2 


55.0 


Columbus 


605 


75.2% 


S3 


6.6% 


146 


18.2% 


804 


190.8 


47.0 


District Totals 


1,348 


77.7% 


103 


5.9% 


284 


16.4% 


1,735 


171.6 


47.0 


District 14 




















Durham 


2,020 


65.7% 


137 


4.5% 


917 


29.8% 


3,074 


330.7 


62.0 



221 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 







Ages 


of Disposed 


Cases (Months) 




Total 
Disposed 

1,297 


Mean 

Age (Days) 

100.6 


Median 


District 15A 

Alamance 


<6 

1,131 


% 
87.2% 


6-12 

91 


% 
7.0% 


>12 

75 


% 
5.8% 


Age (Days) 
56.0 


District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 


369 
684 


75.8% 
87.5% 


55 
31 


11.3% 

4.0% 


63 

67 


12.9% 
8.6% 


487 
782 


135.2 
105.6 


47.0 
34.0 


District Totals 


1,053 


83.0% 


86 


6.8% 


130 


10.2% 


1,269 


117.0 


40.0 


District 16A 
Hoke 

Scotland 


250 
514 


83.1% 
86.5% 


30 

42 


10.0% 
7.1% 


21 
38 


7.0% 
6.4% 


301 
594 


92.5 

73.2 


6.0 

7.0 


District Totals 


764 


85.4% 


72 


8.0% 


59 


6.6% 


895 


79.7 


7.0 


District 16B 

Robeson 


1,633 


85.1% 


116 


6.0% 


170 


8.9% 


1,919 


120.7 


14.0 


District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 


177 
834 


86.8% 
84.9% 


16 
100 


7.8% 
10.2% 


11 

48 


5.4% 
4.9% 


204 
982 


87.0 
88.2 


16.5 
41.0 


District Totals 


1,011 


85.2% 


116 


9.8% 


59 


5.0% 


1,186 


88.0 


38.0 


District 17B 

Stokes 
Surry 


230 
592 


87.1% 
87.3% 


11 

48 


4.2% 
7.1% 


23 
38 


8.7% 
5.6% 


264 
678 


104.4 
82.1 


49.0 
40.0 


District Totals 


822 


87.3% 


59 


6.3% 


61 


6.5% 


942 


88.4 


42.0 


District 18 

Guilford 


4,097 


78.0% 


333 


6.3% 


823 


15.7% 


5,253 


223.9 


56.0 


District 19A 

Cabarrus 


950 


85.0% 


151 


13.5% 


16 


1.4% 


1,117 


79.8 


45.0 


District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 


251 
779 


83.1% 
86.7% 


33 
61 


10.9% 
6.8% 


18 
58 


6.0% 
6.5% 


302 
898 


100.4 
92.8 


44.0 
42.0 


District Totals 


1,030 


85.8% 


94 


7.8% 


76 


6.3% 


1,200 


94.7 


42.0 


District 19C 

Rowan 


1,061 


86.1% 


69 


5.6% 


102 


8.3% 


1,232 


96.7 


46.0 



222 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 







Ages 


of Disposed 


Cases (Mor 


iths) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Age (Days) 


district 20 




















Anson 


273 


90.4% 


19 


6.3% 


10 


3.3% 


302 


80.3 


43.0 


Moore 


518 


87.1% 


44 


7.4% 


33 


5.5% 


595 


92.5 


44.0 


Richmond 


565 


89.8% 


38 


6.0% 


26 


4.1% 


629 


81.4 


41.0 


Stanly 


517 


91.2% 


31 


5.5% 


10 


3.4% 


567 


76.9 


35.0 


Union 


742 


83.7% 


58 


6.5% 


87 


9.8% 


887 


115.1 


38.0 


District Totals 


2,615 


87.8% 


190 


6.4% 


175 


5.9% 


2,980 


92.7 


40.0 


District 21 




















Forsyth 


2,844 


85.8% 


220 


6.6% 


251 


7.6% 


3,315 


107.9 


53.0 


District 22 




















Alexander 


243 


90.3% 


IS 


6.7% 


8 


3.0% 


269 


63.0 


33.0 


Davidson 


1,215 


83.2% 


45 


3.1% 


200 


13.7% 


1,460 


172.1 


40.0 


Davie 


285 


81.4% 


31 


8.9% 


34 


9.7% 


350 


119.2 


48.5 


Iredell 


1,053 


88.5% 


75 


6.3% 


62 


5.2% 


1,190 


74.8 


26.0 


District Totals 


2,796 


85.5% 


169 


5.2% 


304 


9.3% 


3,269 


122.0 


37.0 


District 23 




















Alleghany 


106 


85.5% 


8 


6.5% 


10 


8.1% 


124 


88.9 


42.0 


Ashe 


151 


80.7% 


16 


8.6% 


20 


10.7% 


187 


142.2 


38.0 


Wilkes 


632 


90.5% 


42 


6.0% 


24 


3.4% 


698 


69.7 


37.0 


Yadkin 


241 


88.6% 


11 


4.0% 


20 


7.4% 


272 


93.0 


33.0 


District Totals 


1,130 


88.2% 


77 


6.0% 


74 


5.8% 


1,281 


87.1 


38.0 


District 24 




















Avery 


129 


84.3% 


7 


4.6% 


17 


11.1% 


153 


110.8 


43.0 


Madison 


148 


82.7% 


19 


10.6% 


12 


6.7% 


179 


126.7 


52.0 


Mitchell 


144 


83.7% 


12 


7.0% 


16 


9.3% 


172 


173.0 


65.5 


Watauga 


248 


82.7% 


25 


8.3% 


27 


9.0% 


300 


135.0 


57.0 


Yancey 


119 


84.4% 


13 


9.2% 


9 


6.4% 


141 


116.0 


43.0 


District Totals 


788 


83.4% 


76 


8.0% 


81 


8.6% 


945 


133.6 


54.0 


District 25 




















Burke 


857 


81.8% 


125 


11.9% 


66 


6.3% 


1,048 


96.4 


42.0 


Caldwell 


788 


90.7% 


46 


5.3% 


35 


4.0% 


869 


68.6 


37.0 


Catawba 


1,505 


81.0% 


131 


7.1% 


221 


11.9% 


1,857 


122.9 


45.0 


District Totals 


3,150 


83.5% 


302 


8.0% 


322 


8.5% 


3,774 


103.0 


42.0 


District 26 




















Mecklenburg 


5,264 


81.0% 


382 


5.9% 


852 


13.1% 


6,498 


157.0 


61.0 


District 27A 




















Gaston 


2,583 


87.8% 


208 


7.1% 


150 


5.1% 


2,941 


77.2 


37.0 



223 



1 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 
DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Mean 

Age (Days) 



66.4 
69.6 

67.2 



141.3 



166.8 
161.5 
112.9 
104.5 
112.7 

134.8 



83.0 
99.3 
162.7 
134.4 
153.5 
194.0 
105.0 

137.6 

157.2 







Ages 


of Dispos 


ed Cases (IN 


lonths) 




Total 




<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Disposed 


District 27B 
















Cleveland 


1,697 


89.2% 


184 


9.7% 


21 


1.1% 


1,902 


Lincoln 


570 


87.8% 


74 


11.4% 


5 


0.8% 


649 


District Totals 


2,267 


88.9% 


258 


10.1% 


26 


1.0% 


2,551 


District 28 
















Buncombe 


1,973 


77.0% 


303 


11.8% 


285 


11.1% 


2,561 


District 29 
















Henderson 


601 


76.2% 


72 


9.1% 


116 


14.7% 


789 


McDowell 


324 


76.8% 


43 


10.2% 


55 


13.0% 


422 


Polk 


118 


83.7% 


11 


7.8% 


12 


8.5% 


141 


Rutherford 


757 


88.3% 


34 


4.0% 


66 


7.7% 


857 


Transylvania 


268 


79.8% 


42 


12.5% 


26 


7.7% 


336 


District Totals 


2,068 


81.3% 


202 


7.9% 


275 


10.8% 


2,545 


District 30 
















Cherokee 


189 


88.7% 


11 


5.2% 


13 


6.1% 


213 


Clay 


48 


84.2% 


6 


10.5% 


3 


5.3% 


57 


Graham 


61 


72.6% 


12 


14.3% 


11 


13.1% 


84 


Haywood 


506 


86.9% 


29 


5.0% 


47 


8.1% 


582 


Jackson 


221 


77.8% 


24 


8.5% 


39 


13.7% 


284 


Macon 


186 


76.5% 


23 


9.5% 


34 


14.0% 


243 


Swain 


118 


83.1% 


17 


12.0% 


7 


4.9% 


142 


District Totals 


1,329 


82.8% 


122 


7.6% 


154 


9.6% 


1,605 


State Totals 


73,627 


81.2% 


6,737 


7.4% 


10,342 


11.4% 


90,706 



Median 

Age (Days) 

41.0 
42.0 

41.0 



49.0 



52.0 
51.0 
47.0 
39.0 
45.5 

45.0 



40.0 
61.0 
63.0 
36.0 
45.5 
49.0 
40.5 

42.0 

48.0 



224 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 



<9 

7 

23 

24 
123 

14 
42 
14 



% 

70.0% 
60.5% 
40.7% 
34.6% 
73.7% 
28.6% 
40.0% 



9-18 

1 

10 
12 

91 
4 

42 
12 



% 

10.0% 
26.3% 
20.3% 
25.6% 
21.1% 
28.6% 
34.3% 



>18 

2 

5 

23 

142 

1 

63 



20.0% 
13.2% 
39.0% 
39.9% 
5.3% 
42.9% 
25.7% 



Total 
Pending 

10 
38 
59 

356 
19 

147 
35 



Mean 

Age (Days) 

314.2 
294.9 
512.1 
461.2 
170.5 
566.8 
695.1 



Median 
Age (Days) 

165.5 
214.0 
405.0 
440.0 
98.0 
428.0 
321.0 



District Totals 



247 



37.2% 



172 



25.9% 



245 



36.9% 



664 



481.4 



379.5 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 



54 


34.4% 


7 


28.0% 


36 


55.4% 


4 


50.0% 


34 


65.4% 



28 


17.8% 


8 


32.0% 


14 


21.5% 


2 


25.0% 


10 


19.2% 



135 



44.0% 



62 



20.2% 



75 


47.8% 


157 


10 


40.0% 


25 


15 


23.1% 


65 


2 


25.0% 


8 


8 


15.4% 


52 


10 


35.8% 


307 



614.9 
632.2 
510.7 
381.8 
332.3 

540.3 



487.0 
510.0 
217.0 
319.5 
155.0 

384.0 



District 3A 

Pitt 



281 



94.9% 



15 



5.1% 



0.0% 



296 



104.4 



78.0 



District 3B 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 

District Totals 



98 

193 

11 

302 



86.0% 
85.8% 
68.8% 

85.1% 



10 

24 
3 

37 



10.7% 
18.8% 

10.4% 



6 

8 

2 

16 



5.3% 

3.6% 

12.5% 

4.5% 



114 

225 

16 

355 



146.2 
136.0 
268.1 

145.2 



103.5 

82.0 

181.0 

84.0 



District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 



72 

6 

284 

79 



68.6% 
54.5% 
41.5% 

76.7% 



21 

4 

159 

21 



20.0% 
36.4% 
23.2% 
20.4% 



12 

1 

242 

3 



11.4% 
9.1% 

35.3% 
2.9% 



105 

11 

685 

103 



257.3 
269.5 
473.3 
191.3 



152.0 
130.0 
376.0 
130.0 



District Totals 



441 



48.8% 



205 



22.7% 



258 



28.5% 



904 



413.6 



285.0 



District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 



558 
70 



59.5% 
70.7% 



307 
23 



32.7% 
23.2% 



73 
6 



7.8% 
6.1% 



938 
99 



260.3 
209.6 



209.0 
120.0 



District Totals 



628 



60.6% 



330 



31.8% 



79 



7.6% 



1,037 



255.4 



202.0 



District 6A 

Halifax 



59 



11.9% 



0.0% 



67 



96.8 



54.0 



225 



1 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 









Ages of Pendi 


ng Cases (Mc 


jnths) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 




<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 6B 




















Bertie 


21 


80.8% 


5 


19.2% 





0.0% 


26 


123.9 


73.5 


Hertford 


25 


80.6% 


5 


16.1% 


1 


3.2% 


31 


118.4 


46.0 


Northampton 


18 


81.8% 


2 


9.1% 


2 


9.1% 


22 


163.5 


64.5 


District Totals 


64 


81.0% 


12 


15.2% 


3 


3.8% 


79 


132.7 


57.0 


District 7 




















Edgecombe 


101 


75.4% 


20 


14.9% 


13 


9.7% 


134 


232.4 


137.0 


Nash 


219 


62.0% 


68 


19.3% 


66 


18.7% 


353 


311.5 


172.0 


Wilson 


157 


68.0% 


40 


17.3% 


34 


14.7% 


231 


296.8 


146.0 


District Totals 


477 


66.4% 


128 


17.8% 


113 


15.7% 


718 


292.0 


152.0 


District 8 

Greene 


24 


72.7% 


4 


12.1% 


5 


15.2% 


33 


254.5 


110.0 


Lenoir 


139 


79.4% 


35 


20.0% 


1 


0.6% 


175 


156.0 


126.0 


Wayne 


451 


54.3% 


291 


35.0% 


89 


10.7% 


831 


276.2 


250.0 


District Totals 


614 


59.1% 


330 


31.8% 


95 


9.1% 


1,039 


255.3 


221.0 


District 9 




















Franklin 


281 


78.7% 


66 


18.5% 


10 


2.8% 


357 


171.9 


123.0 


Granville 


63 


75.9% 


14 


16.9% 


6 


7.2% 


83 


188.5 


130.0 


Person 


47 


68.1% 


14 


20.3% 


8 


11.6% 


69 


232.7 


160.0 


Vance 


112 


61.5% 


40 


22.0% 


30 


16.5% 


182 


320.0 


134.5 


Warren 


19 


51.4% 


11 


29.7% 


7 


18.9% 


37 


340.4 


256.0 


District Totals 


522 


71.7% 


145 


19.9% 


61 


8.4% 


728 


225.1 


126.0 


District 10 




















Wake 


2,878 


43.4% 


1,692 


25.5% 


2,068 


31.2% 


6,638 


441.4 


335.0 


District 11 




















Harnett 


183 


73.5% 


60 


24.1% 


6 


2.4% 


249 


173.3 


138.0 


Johnston 


267 


72.6% 


90 


24.5% 


11 


3.0% 


368 


186.5 


138.0 


Lee 


180 


83.3% 


36 


16.7% 





0.0% 


216 


143.6 


124.0 


District Totals 


630 


75.6% 


186 


22.3% 


17 


2.0% 


833 


171.4 


132.0 


District 12 




















Cumberland 


432 


92.9% 


31 


6.7% 


2 


0.4% 


465 


110.8 


85.0 


District 13 




















Bladen 


76 


54.3% 


48 


34.3% 


16 


11.4% 


140 


266.8 


198.0 


Brunswick 


126 


56.3% 


66 


29.5% 


32 


14.3% 


224 


329.3 


227.5 


Columbus 


142 


61.5% 


62 


26.8% 


27 


11.7% 


231 


274.1 


190.0 


District Totals 


344 


57.8% 


176 


29.6% 


75 


12.6% 


595 


293.2 


204.0 



226 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 



PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) Total Mean 

Age (Days) 



253.9 



175.6 



226.9 
385.8 





<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Pending 


District 14 
















Durham 


741 


61.7% 


264 


22.0% 


196 


16.3% 


1,201 


District 15A 
















Alamance 


562 


72.3% 


166 


21.4% 


49 


6.3% 


777 


District 15B 
















Chatham 


43 


62.3% 


21 


30.4% 


5 


7.2% 


69 


Orange 


208 


47.2% 


120 


27.2% 


113 


25.6% 


441 


District Totals 


251 


49.2% 


141 


27.6% 


118 


23.1% 


510 


District 16A 
















Hoke 


26 


55.3% 


13 


27.7% 


8 


17.0% 


47 


Scotland 


63 


58.9% 


32 


29.9% 


12 


11.2% 


107 


District Totals 


89 


57.8% 


45 


29.2% 


20 


13.0% 


154 


District 16B 
















Robeson 


234 


29.0% 


161 


20.0% 


412 


51.1% 


807 


District 17A 
















Caswell 


14 


60.9% 


3 


13.0% 


6 


26.1% 


23 


Rockingham 


87 


80.6% 


18 


16.7% 


3 


2.8% 


108 


District Totals 


101 


77.1% 


21 


16.0% 


9 


6.9% 


131 


District 17B 
















Stokes 


44 


54.3% 


13 


16.0% 


24 


29.6% 


81 


Surry 


108 


76.6% 


21 


14.9% 


12 


8.5% 


141 


District Totals 


152 


68.5% 


34 


15.3% 


36 


16.2% 


222 


District 18 
















Guilford 


1,922 


42.1% 


1,041 


22.8% 


1,597 


35.0% 


4,560 


District 19A 
















Cabarrus 


284 


90.2% 


29 


9.2% 


2 


0.6% 


315 


District 19B 
















Montgomery 


79 


49.1% 


25 


15.5% 


57 


35.4% 


161 


Randolph 


123 


60.9% 


45 


22.3% 


34 


16.8% 


202 


District Totals 


202 


55.6% 


70 


19.3% 


91 


25.1% 


363 


District 19C 
















Rowan 


211 


78.1% 


43 


15.9% 


16 


5.9% 


270 



364.3 



303.1 
297.3 

299.1 



621.1 



341.4 
143.2 

178.0 



392.4 
201.0 

270.9 



429.9 



114.5 



426.5 
289.4 

350.2 



214.6 



Median 
Age (Days) 

151.0 



90.0 

138.0 
308.0 

276.0 



239.0 
207.0 

216.0 



566.0 



140.0 
91.5 

96.0 



235.0 
119.0 

159.0 



361.0 



64.0 



291.0 
190.0 

224.0 



166.0 



227 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 



<Q 



% 



PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) Total 

Pending 



9-18 



>18 



% 



District 20 






Anson 


37 


26.8% 


Moore 


168 


38.6% 


Richmond 


128 


39.8% 


Stanly 


121 


44.5% 


Union 


198 


41.6% 


District Totals 


652 


39.7% 


District 21 






Forsyth 


959 


66.2% 


District 22 






Alexander 


43 


86.0% 


Davidson 


170 


48.3% 


Davie 


61 


61.6% 


Iredell 


213 


69.8% 


District Totals 


487 


60.4% 


District 23 






Alleghany 


19 


79.2% 


Ashe 


33 


64.7% 


Wilkes 


330 


79.5% 


Yadkin 


73 


58.4% 


District Totals 


455 


74.0% 


District 24 






Avery 


40 


53.3% 


Madison 


15 


55.6% 


Mitchell 


30 


93.8% 


Watauga 


88 


71.0% 


Yancey 


20 


80.0% 


District Totals 


193 


68.2% 


District 25 






Burke 


109 


80.7% 


Caldwell 


111 


71.2% 


Catawba 


264 


84.9% 


District Totals 


484 


80.4% 



24 


17.4% 


77 


55.8% 


138 


91 


20.9% 


176 


40.5% 


435 


73 


22.7% 


121 


37.6% 


322 


59 


21.7% 


92 


33.8% 


272 


99 


20.8% 


179 


37.6% 


476 



346 



321 



203 



76 
18 

107 



51 



21.1% 



22.2% 



6 


12.0% 


85 


24.1% 


29 


29.3% 


83 


27.2% 



25.2% 



20.8% 
15.7% 
18.3% 
14.4% 

17.4% 



13 


17.3% 


8 


29.6% 


1 


3.1% 


27 


21.8% 


2 


8.0% 



18.0% 



21 


15.6% 


37 


23.7% 


31 


10.0% 



645 



168 



116 



53 



39 



39.3% 



11.6% 



14.4% 



13.8% 



1,643 



1,448 



1 


2.0% 


50 


97 


27.6% 


352 


9 


9.1% 


99 


9 


3.0% 


305 



806 






0.0% 


24 


10 


19.6% 


51 


9 


2.2% 


415 


34 


27.2% 


125 



615 



22 


29.3% 


75 


4 


14.8% 


27 


1 


3.1% 


32 


9 


7.3% 


124 


3 


12.0% 


25 



283 



89 



14.8% 



5 


3.7% 


135 


8 


5.1% 


156 


16 


5.1% 


311 


29 


4.8% 


602 



;e (Days) 


Age (Days) 


738.5 


712.5 


510.5 


426.0 


478.4 


373.0 


436.6 


309.5 


455.0 


385.5 



495.0 



250.5 



174.5 
358.2 
274.5 
207.1 

279.3 



158.8 
270.3 
156.1 
396.4 

214.5 



365.0 
261.5 
123.9 
200.5 
183.3 

239.7 



148.8 
184.2 
149.5 

158.3 



396.0 



165.0 



133.5 
293.5 
236.0 
154.0 

195.0 



97.0 
148.0 

95.0 
195.0 

111.0 



249.0 
197.0 

77.0 
127.5 

96.0 

141.0 



81.0 

111.0 

78.0 

88.0 



District 26 

Mecklenburg 3,211 63.1% 1,430 28.1% 449 8.8% 5,090 



239.1 



186.0 



District 27A 

Gaston 



214 89.9% 



18 7.6% 



2.5% 238 



112.2 



54.5 



228 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 



District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 



<9 

146 
59 



Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



% 

95.4% 
95.2% 



9-18 

7 
3 



% 

4.6% 
4.8% 



>18 







% 

0.0% 
0.0% 



Total 
Pending 

153 
62 



Mean 

Age (Days) 

95.4 
87.5 



Median 

Age (Days) 

75.0 
73.0 



District Totals 



205 



95.3% 



10 



4.7% 



0.0% 



215 



93.1 



75.0 



District 28 

Buncombe 



545 



78.5% 



94 



13.5% 



55 



7.9% 



694 



187.9 



118.0 



District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 



122 
42 

23 
77 

31 



71.3% 
91.3% 
79.3% 
74.8% 
62.0% 



28 
1 
3 

23 
10 



16.4% 
2.2% 
10.3% 
22.3% 
20.0% 



21 
3 
3 
3 

9 



12.3% 
6.5% 

10.3% 
2.9% 

18.0% 



171 
46 
29 

103 
50 



243.1 
143.2 
199.6 
170.1 
323.6 



166.0 
83.5 
139.0 
117.0 
134.0 



District Totals 



295 



73.9% 



65 



16.3% 



39 



399 



219.7 



137.0 



District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 



34 
15 
11 
102 
54 
51 
18 



81.0% 
83.3% 
61.1% 
54.0% 
50.0% 
60.0% 
75.0% 



6 

2 

7 

40 

30 

12 

6 



14.3% 
11.1% 
38.9% 
21.2% 
27.8% 
14.1% 
25.0% 



2 
1 



47 

24 

22 





4.8% 

5.6% 

0.0% 

24.9% 

22.2% 

25.9% 

0.0% 



42 

18 
18 
189 
108 
85 
24 



177.1 
187.7 
202.6 
481.3 
323.9 
482.4 
168.7 



102.0 
100.5 
178.5 
236.0 
251.5 
209.0 
100.0 



District Totals 



285 



58.9% 



103 



21.3% 



96 



19.8% 



484 



383.2 



204.0 



State Totals , 



20,788 



56.9% 



8,381 



22.9% 



7,383 



20.2% 



36,552 



327.3 



216.0 



229 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) Total 





<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Dispose) 


District 1 
















Camden 


i: 


70.6% 


1 


5.9% 


4 


23.5% 


17 


Chowan 


56 


76.7% 


8 


11.0% 


9 


12.3% 


73 


Currituck 


54 


46.2% 


12 


10.3% 


51 


43.6% 


117 


Dare 


207 


82.1% 


21 


8.3% 


24 


9.5% 


252 


Gates 


34 


81.0% 


6 


14.3% 


2 


4.8% 


42 


Pasquotank 


149 


85.6% 


16 


9.2% 


9 


5.2% 


174 


Perquimans 


27 


84.4% 


3 


9.4% 


2 


6.3% 


32 


District Totals 


539 


76.2% 


67 


9.5% 


101 


14.3% 


707 


District 2 
















Beaufort 


141 


75.0% 


8 


4.3% 


39 


20.7% 


188 


Hyde 


8 


66.7% 


2 


16.7% 


2 


16.7% 


12 


Martin 


44 


83.0% 


7 


13.2% 


2 


3.8% 


53 


Tyrrell 


19 


76.0% 


2 


8.0% 


4 


16.0% 


25 


Washington 


75 


72.1% 


17 


16.3% 


12 


11.5% 


104 


District Totals 


287 


75.1% 


36 


9.4% 


59 


15.4% 


382 


District 3A 
















Pitt 


799 


93.5% 


54 


6.3% 


2 


0.2% 


855 


District 3B 
















Carteret 


309 


90.9% 


20 


5.9% 


11 


3.2% 


340 


Craven 


590 


93.2% 


31 


4.9% 


12 


1.9% 


633 


Pamlico 


33 


82.5% 


5 


12.5% 


2 


5.0% 


40 


District Totals 


932 


92.0% 


56 


5.5% 


25 


2.5% 


1,013 


District 4 
















Duplin 


153 


74.3% 


21 


10.2% 


32 


15.5% 


206 


Jones 


33 


78.6% 


4 


9.5% 


5 


11.9% 


42 


Onslow 


646 


57.7% 


158 


14.1% 


316 


28.2% 


1,120 


Sampson 


264 


92.6% 


16 


5.6% 


5 


1.8% 


285 


District Totals 


1,096 


66.3% 


199 


12.0% 


358 


21.7% 


1,653 


District 5 
















New Hanover 


1,273 


73.5% 


347 


20.0% 


113 


6.5% 


1,733 


Pender 


133 


65.8% 


43 


21.3% 


26 


12.9% 


202 


District Totals 


1,406 


72.7% 


390 


20.2% 


139 


7.2% 


1,935 


District 6A 
















Halifax 


188 


90.4% 


17 


8.2% 


3 


1.4% 


208 



Mean 


Median 


;e (Days) 


Age (Days) 


312.4 


92.0 


269.1 


81.0 


705.5 


315.0 


188.6 


81.5 


164.6 


61.5 


141.0 


68.5 


198.9 


115.5 



272.7 



319.5 
299.3 
143.8 
226.4 
236.1 

265.7 



121.1 



125.1 
123.7 
146.0 

125.0 



239.9 
255.7 
503.2 
119.4 

397.9 



191.9 
226.3 

195.5 



111.1 



87.0 



91.0 

123.5 

65.0 

52.0 

163.5 

90.5 



98.0 



87.5 
86.0 
79.0 

86.0 



88.0 
116.0 
195.0 

64.0 

138.0 



104.0 
129.0 

106.0 



71.5 



230 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) Total Mean 

Disposed Age (Days) 



District 6B 

Bertie 

Hertford 

Northampton 



<9 



65 
88 
65 



% 

79.3% 
77.2% 
79.3% 



9-18 

11 

19 

6 



13.4% 

16.7% 

7.3% 



>18 

6 

7 
11 



% 

7.3% 
6.1% 

13.4% 



82 
114 

82 



169.4 
201.0 
219.5 



Median 
Age (Days) 

87.0 
135.0 

108.5 



District Totals 



218 



78.4% 



36 



12.9% 



24 



8.6% 



278 



197.2 



111.5 



District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 
Wilson 



247 
449 
362 



87.3% 
78.5% 
73.6% 



26 


9.2% 


70 


12.2% 


66 


13.4% 



10 


3.5% 


283 


53 


9.3% 


572 


64 


13.0% 


492 



141.0 
200.2 
253.8 



73.0 

92.5 

100.0 



District Totals 



1,058 



78.5% 



162 



12.0% 



127 



9.4% 



1,347 



207.3 



90.0 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 

Wayne 



54 
317 
624 



88.5% 
78.5% 
71.9% 



5 

78 
124 



8.2% 
19.3% 
14.3% 



2 
9 

120 



3.3% 

2.2% 

13.8% 



61 
404 
868 



113.8 
158.1 
220.7 



73.0 
91.0 
92.0 



District Totals 



995 



74.6% 



207 



15.5% 



131 



9.8% 



1,333 



196.8 



91.0 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



334 
139 
135 
215 
53 



86.5% 
81.8% 
83.3% 
78.5% 
85.5% 



38 


9.8% 


24 


14.1% 


20 


12.3% 


44 


16.1% 


3 


4.8% 



14 


3.6% 


386 


7 


4.1% 


170 


7 


4.3% 


162 


15 


5.5% 


274 


6 


9.7% 


62 



142.3 
160.4 
152.3 
183.5 
162.9 



86.0 
90.0 
84.5 
99.5 
80.0 



District Totals 



876 



83.1% 



129 



12.2% 



49 



4.6% 



1,054 



158.7 



District 10 

Wake 



4,646 



60.2% 



1,069 



13.8% 



2,008 



26.0% 



7.723 



420.6 



164.0 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 



365 
541 
314 



65.6% 
84.4% 
70.1% 



184 

90 

125 



33.1% 
14.0% 
27.9% 



7 


1.3% 


556 


10 


1.6% 


641 


9 


2.0% 


448 



196.3 
135.7 

178.5 



138.5 

78.0 

105.5 



District Totals 



1,220 74.2% 



399 



24.3% 



26 



1.6% 



1,645 



167.8 



98.0 



District 12 

Cumberland 



1,519 



92.7% 



114 



7.0% 



0.4% 



1,639 



116.8 



84.0 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 



252 
222 
248 



79.0% 
57.1% 
61.4% 



53 


16.6% 


14 


4.4% 


319 


51 


13.1% 


116 


29.8% 


389 


48 


11.9% 


108 


26.7% 


404 



154.7 
393.7 
299.4 



77.0 
157.0 
105.5 



District Totals 



722 



64.9% 



152 



13.7% 



238 



21.4% 



1,112 



290.9 



96.0 



231 



l 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 







Ages 


of Dispoj 


ied Cases (Mi 


Dnths) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 14 




















Durham 


1,390 


71.7% 


240 


12.4% 


309 


15.9% 


1,939 


265.5 


112.0 


District 15A 




















Alamance 


903 


83.7% 


118 


10.9% 


58 


5.4% 


1,079 


164.4 


92.0 


District 15B 




















Chatham 


99 


80.5% 


7 


5.7% 


17 


13.8% 


123 


196.2 


97.0 


Orange 


522 


79.2% 


68 


10.3% 


69 


10.5% 


659 


207.9 


120.0 


District Totals 


621 


79.4% 


75 


9.6% 


86 


11.0% 


782 


206.0 


116.0 


District 16A 




















Hoke 


86 


87.8% 


8 


8.2% 


4 


4.1% 


98 


133.5 


76.5 


Scotland 


199 


74.5% 


56 


21.0% 


12 


4.5% 


267 


176.8 


82.0 


District Totals 


285 


78.1% 


64 


17.5% 


16 


4.4% 


365 


165.2 


80.0 


District 16B 




















Robeson 


543 


68.6% 


71 


9.0% 


178 


22.5% 


792 


325.2 


78.0 


District 17A 




















Caswell 


55 


83.3% 


7 


10.6% 


4 


6.1% 


66 


140.6 


53.0 


Rockingham 


382 


86.8% 


48 


10.9% 


10 


2.3% 


440 


138.8 


85.0 


District Totals 


437 


86.4% 


55 


10.9% 


14 


2.8% 


506 


139.0 


83.5 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


75 


72.8% 


9 


8.7% 


19 


18.4% 


103 


260.4 


90.0 


Surry 


368 


86.4% 


39 


9.2% 


19 


4.5% 


426 


134.1 


70.0 


District Totals 


443 


83.7% 


48 


9.1% 


38 


7.2% 


529 


158.7 


74.0 


District 18 




















Guilford 


3,454 


66.6% 


573 


11.0% 


1,162 


22.4% 


5,189 


316.0 


116.0 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


769 


85.3% 


127 


14.1% 


6 


0.7% 


902 


120.5 


66.5 


District 19B 




















Montgomery 


136 


87.2% 


12 


7.7% 


8 


5.1% 


156 


161.6 


82.0 


Randolph 


418 


87.8% 


37 


7.8% 


21 


4.4% 


476 


131.0 


63.0 


District Totals 


554 


87.7% 


49 


7.8% 


29 


4.6% 


632 


138.6 


68.0 


District 19C 




















Rowan 


451 


62.7% 


239 


33.2% 


29 


4.0% 


719 


205.0 


133.0 



232 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) Total 

Disposed 



<9 



% 



9-18 



>18 



% 



District 20 






Anson 


68 


67.3% 


Moore 


253 


76.4% 


Richmond 


186 


84.9% 


Stanly 


308 


89.3% 


Union 


310 


67.1% 


District Totals 


1,125 


77.2% 


District 21 






Forsyth 


2,773 


77.2% 


District 22 






Alexander 


99 


86.1% 


Davidson 


512 


81.3% 


Davie 


86 


52.1% 


Iredell 


469 


80.7% 


District Totals 


1,166 


78.2% 


District 23 






Alleghany 


41 


87.2% 


Ashe 


76 


81.7% 


Wilkes 


1,041 


92.6% 


Yadkin 


112 


69.6% 


District Totals 


1,270 


89.1% 


District 24 






Avery 


69 


75.8% 


Madison 


35 


72.9% 


Mitchell 


68 


81.0% 


Watauga 


285 


78.9% 


Yancey 


55 


93.2% 


District Totals 


512 


79.6% 


District 25 






Burke 


591 


87.4% 


Caldwell 


371 


90.9% 


Catawba 


940 


86.8% 


District Totals 


1,902 


87.8% 


District 26 






Mecklenburg 


5,792 


66.5% 


District 27A 






Gaston 


1,071 


92.6% 



15 


14.9% 


31 


9.4% 


17 


7.8% 


L9 


5.5% 


70 


15.2% 



152 



506 



170 



121 



89 



189 



2,136 



68 



10.4% 



14.1% 



15 


13.0% 


36 


5.7% 


32 


19.4% 


87 


15.0% 



11.4% 



5 


10.6% 


11 


11.8% 


74 


6.6% 


31 


19.3% 



8.5% 



15 


16.5% 


10 


20.8% 


9 


10.7% 


53 


14.7% 


2 


3.4% 



13.J 



65 


9.6% 


25 


6.1% 


99 


9.1% 



8.7% 



24.5% 



5.9% 



18 


17.8% 


101 


47 


14.2% 


331 


16 


7.3% 


219 


18 


5.2% 


345 


82 


17.7% 


462 



181 



312 



155 



34 



42 



76 



784 



12.4% 



8.7% 



10.4% 



6.5% 



3.5% 



9.0% 



1.6% 



1,458 



3,591 



1 


0.9% 


115 


82 


13.0% 


630 


47 


28.5% 


165 


25 


4.3% 


581 



1,491 



1 


2.1% 


47 


6 


6.5% 


93 


9 


0.8% 


1,124 


18 


11.2% 


161 



1,425 



7 


7.7% 


91 


3 


6.3% 


48 


7 


8.3% 


84 


23 


6.4% 


361 


2 


3.4% 


59 



643 



20 


3.0% 


676 


12 


2.9% 


408 


44 


4.1% 


1,083 



2,167 



8,712 



1,157 



Mean 
e (Days) 


Median 

Age (Days) 


263.1 


88.0 


226.2 


117.0 


147.6 


63.0 


155.8 


87.0 


261.8 


112.5 



211.6 



196.7 



125.6 
203.6 
350.4 
162.0 

197.6 



139.7 
154.7 
100.4 
286.6 

126.3 



181.0 
177.4 
151.5 
171.1 
141.5 

167.7 



132.0 
134.0 
149.9 

141.3 



230.1 



115.3 



92.0 



94.0 



69.0 

70.0 

238.0 

84.0 

81.0 



101.0 
55.0 
57.0 
84.0 

61.0 



77.0 
76.5 
72.5 
92.0 
55.0 

83.0 



71.0 
80.0 
90.0 

82.0 



138.0 



83.0 



233 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 







Ages 


of Dispo) 


;ed Cases (M 


onths) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


446 


95.9% 


19 


4.1% 





0.0% 


465 


105.4 


71.0 


Lincoln 


245 


97.2% 


7 


2.8% 





0.0% 


252 


97.6 


68.0 


District Totals 


691 


96.4% 


26 


3.6% 





0.0% 


717 


102.7 


70.0 


District 28 




















Buncombe 


1,412 


81.6% 


241 


13.9% 


77 


4.5% 


1,730 


175.8 


126.0 


District 29 




















Henderson 


306 


71.2% 


74 


17.2% 


50 


11.6% 


430 


250.2 


145.0 


McDowell 


136 


86.1% 


17 


10.8% 


5 


3.2% 


158 


142.2 


77.0 


Polk 


50 


75.8% 


8 


12.1% 


8 


12.1% 


66 


228.7 


100.0 


Rutherford 


233 


83.8% 


40 


14.4% 


5 


1.8% 


278 


149.5 


95.5 


Transylvania 


89 


80.9% 


12 


10.9% 


9 


8.2% 


110 


179.1 


111.5 


District Totals 


814 


78.1% 


151 


14.5% 


77 


7.4% 


1,042 


198.1 


109.0 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


96 


91.4% 


9 


8.6% 





0.0% 


105 


93.7 


58.0 


Clay 


47 


90.4% 


5 


9.6% 





0.0% 


52 


117.3 


66.5 


Graham 


24 


72.7% 


8 


24.2% 


1 


3.0% 


33 


172.9 


130.0 


Haywood 


247 


78.7% 


36 


11.5% 


31 


9.9% 


314 


244.7 


122.0 


Jackson 


122 


78.2% 


23 


14.7% 


11 


7.1% 


156 


204.7 


133.5 


Macon 


96 


76.2% 


12 


9.5% 


18 


14.3% 


126 


262.8 


104.0 


Swain 


37 


88.1% 


4 


9.5% 


1 


2.4% 


42 


146.1 


114.0 


District Totals 


669 


80.8% 


97 


11.7% 


62 


7.5% 


828 


204.9 


106.0 


State Totals 


45,548 


74.3% 


8,692 


14.2% 


7,039 


11.5% 


61,279 


236.5 


104.0 



234 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1991 --June 30, 1992 

Filings Dispositions Filings Dispositions 



DLstrict 1 






District 6B 






Camden 


82 


Sh 


Bertie 


534 


514 


Chowan 


415 


427 


Hertford 


585 


541 


Currituck 


218 


229 


Northampton 


455 


459 


Dare 


591 


603 








Gates 


188 


180 


District Totals 


1,574 


1,514 


Pasquotank 


842 


835 








Perquimans 


218 


207 


District 7 












Edgecombe 


6,876 


6,702 


District Totals 


2,554 


2,567 


Nash 


6,691 


6,667 








Wilson 


4,845 


4,710 


District 2 












Beaufort 


1,367 


1,389 


District Totals 


18,412 


18,079 


Hyde 


135 


134 








Martin 


833 


838 


District 8 






Tyrrell 


121 


127 


Greene 


330 


318 


Washington 


428 


413 


Lenoir 


2,075 


2,062 








Wayne 


3,614 


3,695 


District Totals 


2,884 


2,901 














District Totals 


6,019 


6,075 


District 3A 












Pitt 


3,941 


3,821 


District 9 












Franklin 


1,092 


1,121 


District 3B 






Granville 


1,453 


1,422 


Carteret 


1,096 


1,182 


Person 


875 


973 


Craven 


2,327 


2,408 


Vance 


3,418 


3,574 


Pamlico 


252 


260 


Warren 


1,084 


1,076 



District Totals 3,675 3,850 



District Totals 7,922 8,166 



District 4 






District 10 






Duplin 


1,489 


1,517 


Wake 


18,178 


18,780 


Jones 


239 


263 








Onslow 


5,334 


5,634 


District 11 






Sampson 


1,453 


1,478 


Harnett 


1,644 


1,692 








Johnston 


2,554 


2,544 


District Totals 


8,515 


8,892 


Lee 


1,217 


1,266 


District 5 






District Totals 


5,415 


5,502 


New Hanover 


5,955 


6,111 








Pender 


658 


821 


District 12 












Cumberland 


10,633 


10,555 


District Totals 


6,613 


6,932 


District 13 






District 6A 






Bladen 


2,760 


2,774 


Halifax 


1,508 


1,532 


Brunswick 


1,240 


1,282 








Columbus 


1,144 


1,159 








District Totals 


5,144 


5,215 



235 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Filings Dispositions Filings Dispositions 



District 14 






District 20 






Durham 


15,102 


15,454 


Anson 


1,097 


1,087 








Moore 


1,410 


1,419 


District 15A 






Richmond 


1,493 


1,580 


Alamance 


3,263 


3,381 


Stanly 


1,105 


1,085 








Union 


2,415 


2,444 


District 15B 












Chatham 


697 


716 


District Totals 


7,520 


7,615 


Orange 


1,857 


1,888 


District 21 






District Totals 


2,554 


2,604 


Forsyth 


19,107 


19,459 


District 16A 






District 22 






Hoke 


760 


768 


Alexander 


381 


398 


Scotland 


1,549 


1,628 


Davidson 


3,118 


3,522 








Davie 


515 


509 


District Totals 


2,309 


2,396 


Iredell 


2,711 


2,697 


District 16B 






District Totals 


6,725 


7,126 


Robeson 


3,680 


3,946 


District 23 






District 17A 






Alleghany 


213 


253 


Caswell 


409 


401 


Ashe 


440 


421 


Rockingham 


2,632 


2,625 


Wilkes 


2,079 


2,219 








Yadkin 


427 


462 


District Totals 


3,041 


3,026 














District Totals 


3,159 


3,355 


District 17B 












Stokes 


508 


503 


District 24 






Surry 


1,662 


1,646 


Avery 


316 


339 








Madison 


149 


171 


District Totals 


2,170 


2,149 


Mitchell 


385 


376 








Watauga 


738 


750 


District 18 






Yancey 


352 


358 


Guilford 


17,590 


17,703 














District Totals 


1,940 


1,994 


District 19A 












Cabarrus 


2,686 


2,751 


District 25 












Burke 


1,690 


1,804 


District 19B 






Caldwell 


1,869 


1,811 


Montgomery 


1,674 


1,525 


Catawba 


2,728 


2,709 


Randolph 


1,744 


1,807 









District Totals 3,418 3,332 

District 19C 

Rowan 2,628 2,784 



District Totals 6,287 6,324 

District 26 

Mecklenburg 34,606 39,118 

District 27A 
Gaston 4,731 4,774 



236 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Filings Dispositions 



)lstrict 27B 






Cleveland 


2,923 


3,093 


Lincoln 


1,107 


1,084 



District Totals 4,030 4,177 



District 28 






Buncombe 


4,443 


4,366 


District 29 






Henderson 


997 


1,041 


McDowell 


672 


696 


Polk 


201 


242 


Rutherford 


2,084 


2,088 


Transylvania 


362 


358 



Filings Dispositions 



District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 



District Totals 1,997 2,066 



State Totals 260,289 268,706 



356 


345 


117 


124 


63 


78 


819 


776 


265 


362 


317 


313 


60 


68 



District Totals 4,316 4,425 



237 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



OFFENSES 



CONDITIONS 



Delinquent 



Undisciplined 



Other Misde- 



Children 
Parental Before 

Rights Grand Court for 



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



3 

1 

23 



: 

108 

o 





12 
30 
46 
17 
106 
6 



3 

13 
53 

46 

19 

214 
6 



2 

3 
3 
2 

11 
5 



3 


1 


2 


11 


9 





3 





19 


24 


7 


6 


8 


77 


39 


12 


5 


5 


70 


64 








1 


21 


11 


15 


9 


11 


261 


66 


1 





2 


14 


15 



District Totals 



137 



217 



354 



26 



38 



24 



29 



473 



228 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 



73 

4 
21 


19 



90 


28 
2 

42 



163 
4 

49 

2 

61 



20 


2 


5 


2 


10 


5 


2 


1 


2 


2 



3 


199 


81 





14 


5 


2 


75 


47 





5 


14 


1 


66 


28 



District Totals 



117 



162 



279 



17 



39 



12 



359 



175 



District 3A 

Pitt 



131 



254 



385 



47 



36 



10 



482 



161 



District 3B 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 



50 100 

70 165 

1 12 



150 

235 

13 



16 

41 





18 

48 





16 

17 





27 


12 


15 


238 


93 


48 


13 


14 


375 


102 


3 


1 





17 


18 



District Totals 



121 



277 



398 



57 



66 



33 



78 



26 



29 



630 



213 



District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 



5 

2 

192 

35 



45 

9 

234 

31 



50 

11 
426 

66 



1 

1 

58 





16 

8 

119 

19 



1 

3 

55 





4 


28 
9 



73 

24 

688 

95 



48 

21 

221 

62 



District Totals 



234 



319 



553 



60 



162 



59 



41 



880 



352 



District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 



498 440 938 96 96 16 104 11 32 1,197 383 

11 32 43 41 51 16 2 153 86 



District Totals 



509 



472 



981 



96 



96 



57 



155 



27 



34 



1,350 



469 



District 6A 

Halifax 



114 



107 



221 



17 



247 



115 



238 



District 6B 

Bertie 

Hertford 

Northampton 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 



OFFENSES 



CONDITIONS Children 

Parental Before 

Other Misde- Rights Grand Court for 

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



Delinquent 



Undisciplined 



9 

63 
L3 



30 
58 

27 



39 

121 

40 





3 

11 



41 

133 

58 



21 
49 
40 



District Totals 



85 



115 



200 



14 



232 



110 



District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 



131 
111 

72 



189 
172 
126 



320 
284 
198 





63 
6 




63 

6 



7 

63 

9 



72 


6 


62 


9 


30 


6 



9 


414 


187 


7 


488 


160 


6 


255 


92 



District Totals 



314 



487 



802 



69 



69 



79 



164 



21 



22 



1,157 



439 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 



5 6 

38 88 

95 165 

138 259 



11 
126 
261 

398 



6 

2 

16 

24 




1 

36 

37 



6 

3 

52 

61 



2 

2 

51 

55 



3 

65 

121 

189 





3 
19 

22 



1 
12 
35 

48 



23 
211 
539 

773 



18 
135 
187 

340 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



18 

54 

28 

33 





35 

82 
61 

><2 
19 



53 
136 

89 
115 

19 



6 

5 
2 

10 



10 

1 

8 

21 





16 

1 

13 

23 
10 



5 

5 

2 

13 

5 



18 


4 


5 


4 


19 


11 


11 


3 


5 






1 


97 


81 


5 


156 


65 


5 


139 


61 


3 


168 


105 





39 


29 



District Totals 



133 



279 



412 



23 



40 



63 



30 



58 



22 



14 



599 



341 



District 10 

Wake 



304 



651 



955 



13 



243 256 



128 



113 



24 



49 



1,525 



502 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 



49 54 

75 197 

57 111 



103 
272 
168 



14 
5 



10 
5 
5 



18 
19 
10 



22 
7 



55 


17 


6 


221 


155 


27 


7 


5 


337 


162 


18 


5 


10 


219 


96 



District Totals 



181 



362 



543 



27 



20 



47 



37 



100 



29 



21 



777 



413 



District 12 

Cumberland 



583 



894 1,480 



324 325 



214 



285 



103 



16 2,423 



759 



239 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



OFFENSES 



CONDITIONS 



Delinquent 



Undisciplined 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 



Children 
Parental Before 

Other Misde- Rights Grand Court for 

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



2 3 60 

37 61 

32 101 

2 72 222 



65 





1 


1 


14 


14 


6 


1 


101 


74 


98 


1 


5 


6 


25 


33 


9 


15 


186 


117 


33 





3 


3 


8 


35 


6 


12 


197 


120 


196 


1 


9 


10 


47 


82 


21 


28 


484 


311 



District 14 

Durham 



197 177 



378 



43 48 



68 



68 



28 



599 



196 



District 15A 

Alamance 



77 



301 



378 



16 



159 175 



16 



16 



20 



610 145 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 

District 16A 

Hoke 

Scotland 



10 
56 



District Totals 1 



18 
183 

201 



42 
97 



66 139 



77 
144 

221 



52 
153 

205 



95 
328 

423 



3 3 
6 8 

9 11 



3 3 
11 14 

14 17 



19 

22 

41 



9 

17 



8 


4 


1 


87 


39 


33 


2 


24 


242 


108 


41 


6 


25 


329 


147 


6 


4 


1 


117 


62 


19 








370 


84 



25 



487 



146 



District 16B 




























Robeson 





289 


404 


693 


2 


101 


103 


33 


132 


47 


12 


1,020 


280 


District 17A 




























Caswell 





6 


17 


23 





3 


3 


1 


7 


4 





38 


23 


Rockingham 


f) 


86 


168 


254 


3 


16 


19 


5 


24 


5 


9 


316 


93 


District Totals 





92 


185 


277 


3 


19 


22 


6 


31 


9 


9 


354 


116 


District 17B 




























Stokes 





34 


127 


161 





5 


5 


36 


37 


8 


6 


253 


101 


Surry 





35 


74 


109 


1 


9 


10 


1 


26 


2 


4 


152 


96 


District Totals 





69 


201 


270 


1 


14 


15 


37 


63 


10 


10 


405 


197 


District 18 




























Guilford 


5 


446 


782 


1,233 


52 


153 


205 


169 


208 


35 


82 


1,932 


740 


District 19A 




























Cabarrus 


1 


89 


88 


178 


3 


34 


37 


11 


23 


11 


12 


272 


159 



240 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1991 --June 30, 1992 







Delinque 


nt 


OFFE 


NSES 

Undisciplined 








Other 


Misde- 














Capital Felony 


meanor 


Total 


Truancy 


Other 


Total D 


ependt 


District 19B 


















Montgomery 





13 


22 


35 


3 


3 


6 


3 


Randolph 





105 


309 


414 


10 


92 


102 


37 


District Totals 





118 


331 


449 


13 


95 


108 


40 


District 19C 


















Rowan 





99 


221 


320 


11 


131 


142 


31 


District 20 


















Anson 





2 


36 


38 











6 


Moore 





55 


86 


141 





23 


23 


8 


Richmond 





101 


62 


163 





4 


4 


8 


Stanly 





12 


72 


104 


1 


2 


3 


3 


Union 





116 


195 


311 





73 


73 


53 


District Totals 





306 


451 


757 


1 


102 


103 


78 


District 21 


















Forsyth 


2 


291 


342 


635 


1 


405 


406 


134 


District 22 


















Alexander 





5 


26 


31 


2 


7 


9 


4 


Davidson 





157 


175 


332 


2 


43 


45 


17 


Davie 





28 


63 


91 


8 


5 


13 


9 


Iredell 





137 


181 


318 





81 


81 


17 


District Totals 





327 


445 


772 


12 


136 


148 


47 


District 23 


















Alleghany 





24 


29 


53 


2 


4 


6 





Ashe 





4 


54 


58 


6 


7 


13 


3 


Wilkes 





36 


141 


177 


18 


68 


86 


53 


Yadkin 





16 


73 


89 


18 


23 


41 


33 


District Totals 





SO 


297 


377 


44 


102 


146 


89 


District 24 


















Avery 





25 


5 


30 


37 


5 


42 


4 


Madison 





18 


34 


52 


8 


10 


18 


20 


Mitchell 





3 


22 


25 


11 


7 


18 


1 


Watauga 





12 


41 


53 


2 


21 


21 


7 


Yancey 





3 


2 


5 


14 


3 


17 


7 


District Totals 





61 


104 


165 


72 


46 


118 


39 



CONDITIONS 



Children 
Parental Before 

Rights Grand Court for 



21 


3 





68 


47 


49 


5 


19 


626 


198 



70 



26 



19 





31 


9 


65 


5 


19 


8 


40 


10 



174 



134 



98 



180 



32 



15 



28 



29 



12 


2 


22 


19 


1 


1 


6 


1 


7 


1 



19 



16 



26 



79 



57 



45 



694 



541 



1,170 



1,403 



1,150 



866 



245 



158 



3 


66 


63 


5 


217 


125 





245 


131 


8 


145 


73 





497 


164 



556 



539 



7 


11 





62 


58 


26 


7 


27 


454 


208 


14 


3 


6 


136 


67 


51 


7 


24 


498 


218 



551 



22 


3 


5 


89 


50 


12 


5 


1 


92 


36 


96 


16 


32 


460 


164 


50 


5 


7 


225 


75 



325 



6 


96 


47 


4 


135 


50 


5 


51 


25 


4 


94 


51 





37 


25 



48 



24 



19 



413 



198 



241 



District 25 

Burke 
Caldwell 

Catawba 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



OFFENSES 



CONDITIONS 



Children 

Parental Before 

Other Misde- Rights Grand Court for 

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



Delinquent 



Undisciplined 






22 


121 


143 


14 


66 


80 


41 





60 


112 


172 


14 


36 


50 


41 





68 


130 


198 


11 


46 


57 


36 



43 


10 


11 


328 


135 


65 


23 


9 


360 


174 


50 


28 


26 


395 


199 



District Totals 150 363 513 39 148 187 118 158 61 46 1,083 508 

District 26 

Mecklenburg 602 2,001 2,603 4 466 470 65 245 64 80 3,527 1,082 



District 27A 




























Gaston 





184 


293 


477 


2 


212 


214 


39 


81 


24 


53 


888 


317 


District 27B 




























Cleveland 





37 


109 


146 


3 


5 


8 


4 


73 


12 


11 


254 


140 


Lincoln 





19 


51 


70 


7 


19 


26 





21 





4 


121 


84 


District Totals 





56 


160 


216 


10 


24 


34 


4 


94 


12 


15 


375 


224 


District 28 




























Buncombe 





86 


242 


328 


30 


198 


228 


122 


142 


42 


48 


910 


384 


District 29 




























Henderson 





26 


35 


61 


22 


5 


27 


7 


25 


10 


15 


145 


94 


McDowell 





32 


81 


113 


5 


11 


16 


21 


12 


7 


10 


179 


69 


Polk 





8 


12 


20 





2 


2 


4 


3 


1 


2 


32 


24 


Rutherford 





28 


56 


84 


18 


30 


48 


24 


27 


4 


6 


193 


86 


Transylvania 





14 


50 


64 


2 


2 


4 


25 


26 


3 


13 


135 


37 


District Totals 





108 


234 


342 


47 


50 


97 


81 


93 


25 


46 


684 


310 


District 30 




























Cherokee 





13 


24 


37 


8 


8 


16 


5 


29 


14 


3 


104 


65 


Clay 





2 


3 


5 





7 


7 





4 





1 


17 


17 


Graham 








13 


13 


7 


1 


8 














21 


11 


Haywood 





10 


13 


23 


24 


34 


58 


47 


44 


12 


13 


197 


95 


Jackson 





17 


38 


55 


9 


28 


37 


17 


18 


7 


1 


135 


89 


Macon 


(J 


8 


13 


21 





14 


14 


12 


11 


9 


4 


71 


41 


Swain 








1 


1 


4 


8 


12 


6 


13 


4 





36 


36 


District Totals 





50 


105 


155 


52 


100 


152 


87 


119 


46 


22 


581 


354 


State Totals 


20 


7,217 


13,164 


20,401 


531 


3,674 


4,205 


2,205 


3,799 


952 


1,122 


32,684 


12,805 



242 



fN 



OS 

F 

H 

OS u ft 

r*s >""< """J 

Oh: 

9 s <* 

OS Q ^ 

<! td ^h 

«h = 

o 

H 

y 

M 

Q 

P 

Q 



a I 

£ 1 

s 



•Sfl 

3 

e 
u 

§ 

CU 



e 1 
DC 3S 



Of 



I 



01 


E 


X 


•y: 


>-, 


5 


u 




c 


■a 


<v 


o> 


■D 

e 


3 


Q. 


<u 


i> 


X 



u 

C5 

<u 
X 
>J 

c 

<u 
3 

Ol 

c 

:= 

a 



oo en in in oo — i •— 
en r- in cn no t-i 

CN 



O O O O O -h o 



in o en Tf On 


,— I 


£ 


oo — i no in 


CM 


■— i 


tn 


t 



© On --> 
•— i in en 
cn en 



CN © O O cn 



o o cn — > — o o 



■* O O O — I 



O O O O O CN O 



O O tj- in o oo o 



i-i O O O O CM o 



CN O — I <N O O O 
CN ^h ~h 



r- 



in 



~ © © © © © © -h 



-* en r~ CN © n© oo 



OOOO-hOO — « 



O O O O O — i o — 



^H Tt CN C\ 1-H 



a 5 



o o o © o 



cn o en o cn 



CN O © O O 



On en o cn en 



O O i-i O O i-h 



On en oo O <— i i— " 



o o o o o 



<tf o <-* © o 



oo o r~ — i cn 



cn en o 



f> 


r~- 


en 


m 


ON 


m 


en 


cn 


~- 


^r 




NO 






in on o 



oo no o 



<N NO O 



NO 
ON 



5 



[» o 

00 i-l 



cn no on no in r- en 

CN CN CN fH r- 



■x, 

r- 



in rf en 

On en 



m 



3 £ a 



cn 

O 
CN 



C 
U 

T3 



;= u 



U Q 





3 

| 

CU 



6 

cu 



.a 
a 

U 

'B 

.<& 
Q 



*! .0 

y "a 

1 J 

S CQ 



.S 
1 



X 2 






3 
y 



m 



5 a 

•- £ 

Q 



aa 

en w 

i B 

I U U a. 



d 8 

> c 
n c 



(2 

o 

Q 



243 



v: 

H 

r- 
< 

> 





r- 

u 

H 

U 



0> 



e 



a h J, 

Z ^ o\ 
— ■— ~ 

ft* Q - 

ri H ^ 

= H = 

> Z 
OS K 

C 

H 

— 
Q 

— t 
Q 
< 



X 



r- 



-z 

«9 

eg a 
a. 



u 

c 
TJ 

a 
u 






C3 
W 
= 

■a 

V 

s 
ft 

i 

c 

Bfl 

_c 

"u 
S3 

= 



© oc on co 
t- m CN On 

no 



— or- — 



fc» >n 


CM 


On 


,-1 00 


o 


ON 


On m 


1/1 


® 


^t 00 


in 


r» 


"~1 *~ ' 


ro 


(N 


CO 




><r 



« M ft 
O ** Tf 
CO rl- CN 



00 
ON 
On 



— < — CN 



CM O On 00 



On 



O O — ' 



o t r- 

CN 



•h to \o (S 



O 00 CO NO 



N h rf O 



© •<*■ t- o 

rH CO 



CO O © © 



O H M H 



CO Tf On t}- 

~h 00 



00 CN Tfr — 

co i—i in no 

CO 



CN O 



CM i-l 
© U"> 



© © 



NO — 



Tf © 



CN © 

On 



© -h © — 



© — CO 



CN NO On 






© CN O 



^h in — i 



© no r- 



© cn © 



CO <N T]- 



O CN CO 

■* >n i-H 



© 00 CN 



>n no r- 

V) 



-H I-~ Tf 



in 

© 



CN 

On 



O 



3 



© ■* © 



o 


O 


r~ 


r- 


On 


00 — I 


oo 


C4 


© 


— 


CO 


© 


Tf CO 


oo 



NO 


On in 


OO 


CN 


co 


— rt 


1 — 1 


OO 


■— i 


CN 




<N 



>n * >n 

*t © no 








o 

c 


V, 

3 




V, 

B 

s 


Q 


— 





V, 



,2 

3 


H 

o 

■5 

Q 



> 

o 



w 



o 



-zs 



3 
o 

a 



< 

NO 
fj ,03 

•r § 

•- X 
Q 







^ 






£ 




d 


3 






3 


oa 


o 
ft 


£ 


| 




£ 


NO 


■0 6 


o 


r- 6 




o 


-4-» 

u 

en 

5 


Bertie 
Hertfor 
North ai 


.a 

Q 


District 

Edgecc 
Nash 


o 

I/} 

1 


.a 

Q 



244 



in 
QC 
W 
H 
H 

-J 

z 

> 



o 

< 

U 

a 

Q 
< 



H 

5 
o 
u 

H 
U 



o 

fa 

a 2 

w - 

§ EQ 5 

n S <* 

0< Q ^ 



o 

o> 
c 

3 



fa 
X 

H 



"5 



3 

e 


1 

g 

0) 


\o 


1 

cs 


o 

IT) 


a 










■o 










fi 










cq 


o 


o 


o 




a 




















E 








a 


c 








X) 


r- 








.2f 


*■ 








OS 


z 








1 


-o 








B 





1 — 1 


CS 


tN 




a 




■■* 


en 


si 


c 








Q_ 


I 

C 









04D 

a 

CI 

= 





E 


X 


UJ 


>-, 


5 


u 




e 


■o 


3J 


11 


"O 


e 


C 


15 



u -a 



O © CI 



o cs Ti- 



cs co 



© ^ m 



v£> i— i no c-> 

— i in On On 

— i cs p-i cs 



O •— O CN O 



O O 00 CS O 



o o oo no en 



rf O CN i-H m 



ro cs oo in as 



-h o in in 
>n oo 



r- r- o 



*t 


m 


O 


m 


NO 


no 


r» 


cs 


CS 






cs 




r- 



3s 



■rf o r- i-i m 



ph — cs o m 



3 
m 



SCN VO 
in in 
oo en cs 



3 



o _ ^_ 






t o o 



cm 



in 



o 



—i cs in 



O VO — i 

o 



en cs cs 



o 



On 


in 


P» 


On On 


m 


*t 


o 
cs 


CM 


iH 


m 






o 
in 



CN 


On 


in co 


o 


oo 


NO 


r- 


CS 


On 




On 


C4 



in 

On 



cn 


co in 


o 


o 


<* 


cs 


r- 


t 


cs 




Cs 





On 



o 

<N 

en 



o 


^J 


oc 


O 


^r 


O 


CN 


O C» 


r<-> 


^r 


00 


r» 


p- 


CM 


On 




CO 


o 


tf 




1—1 


CS 


eo 


t- 


r-i 


■sfr 


ON 


>o 


cs 





rf 


ON 


r- 


© 


NO 


in 


— H 


PH 


r» 


o 


^ 


CO 


oo 


>* 


in 


ro 




a 


On 


rj 


*f 


3n 


vO 


i — > 


in 


t- 


r^ 


r» 


oo 


iri 


r-> 


<* 




■— < 


>— ' 


en 








1 — 1 




ro 


oc 


cs 


r— ' 


i — i 


■& 


r^ 











eS 














h 

IB 

5 


I 

a 


§ 

- 




'£ 

.S3 
Q 


On 

6 
Ifl 

5 


i~ 

u. 


«0 

> 

a 


c 




8 

i 
> 


c 

s 



3 

U 

'S 
,59 

a 









^ 










2 













TD 


o 


_ , 




E- 


cs _§ 


V -J 


y U 


c 
o 

to 


o 




5 -a 


1 a 


|j 


.59 
Q 




- 


q 






Q 



245 



J1 

H 

r 

< 






^ 3 £ 

*^ w -T 

as r o 8 

^ 2 ? 

z 22 as 
2 5- 

f\ H 'f 

a sc t 

>" Z 
pes - 

C 
- 
< 

E 

— s 

< 





./- 


CO 


vO 


, — , 


O 




:x 


:c 


90 


r— 


cc 


2 

c 


B 
'u 
a 

X 






ro 


NO 



SI -5 



E 

s. 

5 

V 

B 

3 

V 

at 



si 5i 

B •= 



ex 
ST 



E 



oJ e 



a 


r» o 


r- 


r- <-* 


oo 


o\ 


On <n 


tJ- 


ON 


P* g 


<N 


r-t vo 


r- 


>n 


CN 00 




m 


co 


1>H CO 


^r 


o\ 


CN 


co 



O co in 



O CN 



-< oo in 



o 

CN 



CO 00 i-H 



i-i O —> 



© «-< t-i 



© ^H ^H 



>* Tf O 



vO On — 



O NO r~ 
CN CN Tj- 



On 



i-H H CN 



Tf o 



NO 

co 



nD 

cn 



ND 



o 
CN 



ro 

CN) 



© rH —. 



co oo tJ- 
TT i-t CN 



-h CO CO 



in 



oo 
CO 



o 

CO 



.-H -H CM 



O 
CN 



NO 

CN 



r- ^ r- 

CN CN CN 



oo 


^ 


00 


On 


o 


m 


in 


00 


■* CO 


f» 


IT) 


CO 


"* 


r> 




m 


NO 


On 


co 


CO 



r. 


•XI 


oo 


-r 


CO 


m 




V 


o 


r» 


r- 




- 


c 








CN 


0" 
e 


3 











00 


CO 


in 


oo 


<n cn 


t- 


CO 


^H 00 


On 




CN 


co 


in 


oo r-- 


in 


t— < 


—i On 


O 


CO 




i — i 




CN 


CO 


m 


i"H 


CN 



3 3 



•fa 3 p 



£ 



"3 
Q 



•- Q 



u i 



■a< 




£ 



,3 
Q 



O .v 5 

I 2 8 
5 = w 



c2 
t> 
'E 

.a 

D 



9 



O 



^ -3 60 

si I 



.2 
t> 

.a 
Q 



246 



a 

H 
H 
< 

J 

I S « 

S o i 

as U 8 

M 2 ? 

S H J, 
Z 5a S 

9 H & 

^1 a J 

w B >> 

o 
y 

Q 

p 

N 
Q 
5 



3 

5 


01 




X 




T3 




CD 








M 




e 








1 


3 




j= 


H 


.2P 


M 


a 


e 
X. 


5 


-o 


c 


V 


1) 


15 

c 



nc 


r«l 


3\ 


o 


r^ 


r- 


CJ 




tS 



3 


fi 


O — 1 


o 


§ 


IT] 


tn 


i-l nO 


r~ 


m 



o-i 


r^ 


O 


PH 


C*l 


-r 


fl 


vO 


^^ 


m 


{N 


l£ 




g 




cj 


r<-. 


-— < 


3 


cl 


t 






en -a 

to 

E 

to 



■s 



1 

u> 

■■r. 

c 

cd 

u 

X 

e 
u 

3 
or 

e 

a 

V 

Q 



O O oo tJ- O 



<N m f> tJ- i-H 



in 



f 
in 



£ 


1 










L. 


■t. 










3 

0) 


5 










X 


tj 










a 


V 


O 


«S 


c4 


-* 


e 








1-1 


-C 


5 










< 












•r. 
5X1 


■a 

i 
j-. 


N 


- 


tr\ 


5 


C 

'u 

J5 


s 

to 










1) 


5 












"O 


■* 


^c 


a 


2C 


H 


cj 


— 


■* 


oo 


en 


3 










X 


V 

as 










Sj9 

= 

L. 


1 


ON 




o 


0> 


1 






rH 


tn 


0J 


E 










X 


■r 










>, 


5 










u 












e 


■o 


r-~ 


CD 


r- 


es 


c 


01 

c 

1 


M 




N 


on 


a. 


a> 










u 


21 










Q 
















o cn o fh r- 



t o 



<n «n >n ^h tj- 

^H H CO 






3 



r~- 


<: 


tn 


CJ 


t- 


On 


r- 


vO 


r~ 


NO 


r*i 


— ' 


*f 


to 




r^ 


- — i 









rH iH CM 



O — i CJ O «N 



On 

in 



so r~ oo 






o 



sC 



s 



o 


cn 


IT, 


ir, 


<~) 


t- 


r^! 


ej 


-^r 


i— i 


-r 


in 




^t 






"^ 


— 



5 



3 



o ^- — «s o 



O On O (N v£) 



vO On <S On f-i 
If h (Q 



r- 



«n 



CJ 



ON 

in 



r- 



«B 


t*> 


r- 


* 


3C 


rg 


r^ On 


r~A 


m 


a 


CI 


ON 


& 


^0 


e*i 


rj 


^-i 


in 


■n* ■* 


ON 


r~- 


(T\ 


m 


r- 


C 








nC 


^^ 


rJ 


!~J 


rj 




^^ 




3 
























V 
























a 

























3 * 



^ in 



-t- 




43 
u 

.a 

Q 



—i T3 



* '3 

Is 



BO 






ON 


E 


Pi 









S 


6f 

5 


"o 


a 


s 


2^ 



4S 
o 

b 

Q 



ON 

Q 



o 
r-i 



^ < 



8 



s 

o 



K on 



5? € 

c o 

D 



a 



b 

Q 



5 ^ 

.a ^ 

§ 5 

Q 



247 



© © cn 
■* — t 



jH CN ■* © 

on on — ^ 

V-| CN 



On 



On 


NO 


m 


vo r- 


en 


in 


en 


.— 1 


ON 


ON 


NO 


in 


r- 


■-H Tfr 


NO 


t- 


<N 


NO 


in 


CN 


^H 


1—1 






m 


CM 


■* 


en 


o 





rN 



H 

< 

z 2 
£ o - 

04 W 5 
C H « 
fa U 3 

^ S ? 

Z c« ^ 

NN NH OV 
04 Q - 
< rd *H 

s = t 
= H 4 

^ Z 

C 
H 
< 

Q 

-t 

< 



2 -o 



i i 



— O O O ^h 



© © cn © 



O T-H P~ Tl" 



Tf CN O CN 



m '-< m no 



— cn cn r~ 



no in en 

m i— i rl- 



© © CN CN 



p~ On m r- 



cn 



en o o en 



NO no tJ- 

cn 



oo in ■* o 

~* en ■* 



N h in H 



o o o o o 



CN 
CN 



oo ^r r» m © 



CN 



CN CN © CN ^h 



CN On © © © «H 



cn r- o en o\ *h 



On 



m on o o i-H 



in 
m 



Tf ON l-H 



cn 



o cn .-< 



en cn r-~ 
cn in en 



^h oo © CN © — ' 



CN 



CN 



00 

cn 



en 
en 



CN 



en 



On 



CN 



00 
CN 
CN 



00 


o 


en Tf 


NO 


en 


CN 


^H 


,-H 


00 


00 


o 


0\ in 


«* 


00 


00 


cn 




in 


C4 


oo 


~^ 


CN 








m 


^ cn 




NO 


cn 



ON 



rn cn in cn ^h 



cn rf On oo 



22 5 



cn i— i in m 

i-c r~ en 



3 



no r~ en en 



en 


m 


oo 


NO 


On 


NO 


CN 


CN 


1— * 


NO 






On t-h r-~ O no 
en cn •— < '-* i— i 



cn 
o 



O O r- 
in no Tf 



in 



s 






u. 


i 


TT 


r- 


O 


<N 






en 


1 ' 


'/", 


- 


E 










I 


s. 










>-, 


a 










r 


■a 





rH 





r-- 


v 


u 


CO 


cn 


in 


t 


= 


= 




<-j 




CN 


ST 1 
B 


3 










•j: 


u 










k 


2: 










a 













en 

© 



tj- 00 in cn 

CN ^h 



On 



in 


rs 


r- 


r~ 


~H 


>n 


<* 


>n 


nD 


CN 

en 



CN t)- NO 00 CN 



ti- in r» in r~ 
■^- CN CN Tf 



CN 



00 



no cn cn 
—1 00 p» 



CN 



8 



00 


On 


P- 


00 


»-H 


O 




i — 1 


cn 



I 



cn 

1— 1 



e> 


1> 


H 






N 


■a 









^- 


b 


-•- 






y 




'j 

















a) 


;; 


Tl 


< 


Q 


Q 


L 



f3 






a r 



x: 



S JS «5 3 

1 < < ^ 



c2 

U 

.S3 

Q 



> 

< 



to 
I 



'$ % 






c2 

.a 
Q 



.a S M 

t T< 13 « 

j§ PQ U U 



t3 

o 

.a 

Q 



I 

u 

s 

s 



248 



in 
eC 
H 
H 
H 
< 



-1 
Z 

> 

*^ 

Oi 

O 

u. 

c/3 

O 

z 

0! 

< 

> 

OS 

O 
H 

< 

y 

Q 

P 
*^ 
Q 
< 



H 

OS 

p 

C 

u 

H 
U 






O 

c 



H 
Q ~ 
£ — 
Z 



3 I 

£ 1 

a 



•2f « 



o 

r- 



0£ 

s 



■u 
c 

V 

Q 



DC -O 



E 

5 

■o 
=-l = 

3 

u 

Oi 



If 



U 

X 

s 
v 

3 

a- 
c 



on r- 

■■H CN 



o o 



* 


•— ' On On Tf CI 

"t >o (S h >o 
i-i — i ci 


no 


3 


r~- V-l OO OO f<-) VO 
fH ^h ro o no CO 


00 




- 


■* m o o o 


ON 


CO 


o o r- i-h o o 


PH 


IT) 



3 



O h O t o « o 



in Tt o o ^h o 



^ N N ft h 



— ■* O <N O 



ro O O <N O ^h O 



*H O O NO fH IT) Tj- 



-1- 

oo 



in 

r- 






m © © t)- en .-i © ^ 



1— 


r-i 


» 


ci 


© 


-t 


o 


vC 


** 


en 


CS 


in 


in 


^- , 






r- 





NO 
<N 



Tt O Tf On r~- 



^-i 00 



o o 



o cs ^h cs o 



o o o oo <*• i-h o 



On 



5 



5 



o r- 



in 

o 



in 



CO ^H O VO i-H —I 



NO CO CN NO Tf 

<s -h co 



5 2 



On 






ft ^ h n 

CS 



3 



fN O O in rf On no 



tj- r-~ no oo in Tt no 



o o i-h o en o — i 



nC 



© 



3 



NO 
NO 



On 
00 

en 



en 

00 

en 



00 


oc 


in 


■<t 


o r- 


-t 


>n 


o 


,— 1 


o oc 


r^ 


NO 


r^ 


m 


en 




rt 




^F 


r- 








CM 






-tf 


in 

oo 



NO 
t- 

en 



o 
CS 



es 
m 



r- 


vO 


en 


o 


o 


m 


NO 


1 — p 


r- 


ON 


r~ m 


r~ o 


o 


en o 


rj 


NC 


~ 


UT; 


r- 


nC 

en 


•^r 


oc 


"~ 


2 


rj 




en 


CN 


5 


<N 


en 


NO 

in 



< 




25 




r» 




t» 


■o 


fN 




(N 


^3 


■w 


c 


w 


_2| 


5 


s 


> 
■J 


5 





■r. 

5 


U 



£ .S 



^ 






a 






r2 

"3 


S 


J8 

E 


'£ 











-j 


.- 


'n 




Q 


■•A 


=) 






cc 




5 





o o 

o o 
•o - 



i2 > 



'5 1 "3 ^ 1 i 

a I s c£ £ h 



2 
o 

o 

'£ 
.a 

Q 



2 u 
en u 






•a 

CO 



g U U O K ^ S 



on 



o 

B 

Q 



o 

r- 



3 



249 



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

1982-83 -- 1991-92 




Motor Vehicle and 
Infraction 



Dispositions 



Non-Motor Vehicle 




Dispositions 



2,000,000 



1,600,000 



1,200,000 



Number 

of 

Cases 



800,000 



400,000 



82-83 



83-84 



84-85 



85-86 



86-87 



87-88 



88-89 



89-90 



90-91 



91-92 



Infraction cases are included with criminal motor vehicle 
cases here to show a meaningful trend before and after 
1986. when the infraction category was first created. 
Almost all infractions would have been criminal motor 
vehicle cases before 1986. Motor vehicle and infraction 
case filings together increased by 3.6% in 1991-92, from 
1.145.702 in 1990-91 to 1,186,738 in 1991-92. The increase 



this year follows a decrease in filings of these cases in 
1990-91; over the past two fiscal years, there has been a 
net increase of 1.8% in filings of these cases. Filings of 
criminal non-motor vehicle cases have increased in each 
of the last eight years. Criminal non-motor vehicle filings 
increased by 3.2% in 1991-92, from 610,286 in 1990-91 to 
629,589 in 1991-92. 



250 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 

DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Dispositions 





Filed 


Waiver 


Other 


Total Dispositions 


District 1 










Camden 


430 


96 


348 


444 


Chowan 


574 


196 


415 


611 


Currituck 


908 


228 


710 


938 


Dare 


3,745 


1,347 


2,312 


3,659 


Gates 


431 


88 


317 


405 


Pasquotank 


1,743 


390 


1,343 


1,733 


Perquimans 


749 


212 


531 


743 


District Totals 


8,580 


2,557 


5,976 


8,533 


District 2 










Beaufort 


2,951 


683 


2,537 


3,220 


Hyde 


512 


118 


332 


450 


Martin 


1,539 


320 


1,260 


1,580 


Tyrrell 


515 


151 


348 


499 


Washington 


592 


169 


375 


544 


District Totals 


6,109 


1,441 


4,852 


6,293 


District 3A 










Pitt 


8,737 


846 


7,281 


8,127 


District 3B 










Carteret 


5,165 


1,097 


3,954 


5,051 


Craven 


5,509 


888 


4,564 


5,452 


Pamlico 


467 


65 


377 


442 



District Totals 11,141 



2,050 



8,895 



10,945 



District 4 




Duplin 


3,146 


Jones 


615 


Onslow 


6,683 


Sampson 


4,332 


District Totals 


14,776 


District 5 




New Hanover 


8,981 


Pender 


2,537 


District Totals 


11,518 


District 6A 




Halifax 


4,107 



710 

105 

1,304 

1,282 

3,401 



2,273 
628 

2,901 



1,034 



2,435 

414 

5,704 

3,064 

11,617 



6,845 
1,774 

8,619 



2,651 



3,145 

519 

7,008 

4,346 

15,018 



9,118 
2,402 

11,520 



3,685 



251 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 

DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Dispositions 





Filed 


Waiver 


Other 


Total Dispositions 


District 6B 










Bertie 


1,598 


353 


1,143 


1,496 


Hertford 


2,467 


613 


1,574 


2,187 


Northampton 


1,342 


228 


1,072 


1,300 


District Totals 


5,407 


1,194 


3,789 


4,983 


District 7 










Edgecombe 


4,382 


1,243 


3,524 


4,767 


Nash 


6,209 


2,119 


4,378 


6,497 


Wilson 


4,534 


1,392 


3,740 


5,132 


District Totals 


15,125 


4,754 


11,642 


16,396 


District 8 










Greene 


928 


129 


651 


780 


Lenoir 


5,156 


827 


4,326 


5,153 


Wayne 


6,627 


1,277 


5,263 


6,540 


District Totals 


12,711 


2,233 


10,240 


12,473 


District 9 










Franklin 


2,486 


365 


2,093 


2,458 


Granville 


2,346 


516 


1,862 


2,378 


Person 


2,436 


489 


1,934 


2,423 


Vance 


2,944 


396 


2,851 


3,247 


Warren 


902 


144 


765 


909 


District Totals 


11,114 


1,910 


9,505 


11,415 


District 10 










Wake 


44,291 


5,545 


36,455 


42,000 


District 11 










Harnett 


5,165 


576 


4,873 


5,449 


Johnston 


6,414 


1,025 


5,323 


6,348 


Lee 


4,721 


827 


3,698 


4,525 


District Totals 


16,300 


2,428 


13,894 


16,322 


District 12 










Cumberland 


19,221 


2,726 


16,731 


19,457 


District 13 










Bladen 


3,122 


597 


2,626 


3,223 


Brunswick 


3,532 


421 


3,224 


3,645 


Columbus 


3,561 


421 


3,285 


3,706 


District Totals 


10,215 


1,439 


9,135 


10,574 


District 14 










Durham 


11,998 


2,419 


9,359 


11,778 



252 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 

DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Dispositions 





Filed 


District 15A 




Alamance 


7,758 


District 15B 




Chatham 


2,960 


Orange 


4,924 


District Totals 


7,884 


District 16A 




Hoke 


2,494 


Scotland 


2,769 


District Totals 


5,263 


District 16B 




Robeson 


7,770 


District 17A 




Caswell 


978 


Rockingham 


5,243 


District Totals 


6,221 


District 17B 




Stokes 


2,089 


Surry 


4,147 


District Totals 


6,236 


District 18 




Guilford 


32,675 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 


7,180 


District 19B 




Montgomery 


2,178 


Randolph 


7,082 


District Totals 


9,260 


District 19C 




Rowan 


6,127 



Waiver 

1,524 



501 
890 



Other 


Total 


Dispositions 


6,587 




8,111 


2,537 




3,038 


3,838 




4,728 



1,391 6,375 7,766 



415 2,084 2,499 

497 2,314 2,811 

912 4,398 5,310 



1,039 8,131 9,170 



179 825 1,004 

1,102 4,253 5,355 

1,281 5,078 6,359 



364 1,613 1,977 

795 3,359 4,154 

1,159 4,972 6,131 



3,549 27,174 30,723 



1,456 5,754 7,210 



252 1,953 2,205 

1,132 6,117 7,249 

1,384 8,070 9,454 



1,209 4,967 6,176 



253 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 

DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Dispositions 





Filed 


Waiver 


Other 


Total 


Dispositions 


Mstrict 20 












Anson 


1,906 


325 


1,406 




1,731 


Moore 


4,563 


799 


4,123 




4,922 


Richmond 


2,646 


426 


2,195 




2,621 


Stanly 


3,555 


690 


2,883 




3,573 


Union 


4,854 


906 


4,106 




5,012 



District Totals 17,524 



3,146 



14,713 



17,859 



District 21 










Forsyth 


22,637 


3,310 


19,077 


22,387 


District 22 










Alexander 


1,433 


206 


1,233 


1,439 


Davidson 


7,338 


1,176 


5,999 


7,175 


Davie 


1,753 


304 


1,208 


1,512 


Iredell 


7,535 


1,696 


6,280 


7,976 



District Totals 18,059 



3,382 



14,720 



18,102 



District 23 










Alleghany 


573 


180 


324 


504 


Ashe 


870 


230 


603 


833 


Wilkes 


3,558 


887 


2,878 


3,765 


Yadkin 


2,077 


571 


1,474 


2,045 


District Totals 


7,078 


1,868 


5,279 


7,147 


District 24 










Avery 


1,008 


259 


797 


1,056 


Madison 


1,122 


293 


869 


1,162 


Mitchell 


774 


221 


606 


827 


Watauga 


2,451 


806 


1,677 


2,483 


Yancey 


946 


311 


593 


904 


District Totals 


6,301 


1,890 


4,542 


6,432 


District 25 










Burke 


4,431 


956 


3,537 


4,493 


Caldwell 


4,821 


915 


3,732 


4,647 


Catawba 


7,078 


1,283 


5,957 


7,240 


District Totals 


16,330 


3,154 


13,226 


16,380 


District 26 










Mecklenburg 


46,006 


11,874 


40,364 


52,238 


District 27A 










Gaston 


15,063 


1,944 


13,490 


15,434 



254 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 

DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Dispositions 





Filed 


Waiver 


Other 


Total Dispositions 


District 27B 










Cleveland 


4,375 


871 


3,695 


4,566 


Lincoln 


2,102 


356 


1,730 


2,086 


District Totals 


6,477 


1,227 


5,425 


6,652 


District 28 










Buncombe 


10,877 


4,054 


7,021 


11,075 


District 29 










Henderson 


4,722 


1,007 


3,688 


4,695 


McDowell 


1,820 


559 


1,376 


1,935 


Polk 


610 


162 


446 


608 


Rutherford 


3,514 


865 


2,656 


3,521 


Transylvania 


1,060 


294 


820 


1,114 


District Totals 


11,726 


2,887 


8,986 


11,873 


District 30 










Cherokee 


1,032 


301 


806 


1,107 


Clay 


360 


83 


251 


334 


Graham 


365 


64 


303 


367 


Haywood 


2,598 


423 


2,082 


2,505 


Jackson 


1,266 


199 


1,053 


1,252 


Macon 


1,065 


252 


810 


1,062 


Swain 


854 


202 


614 


816 


District Totals 


7,540 


1,524 


5,919 


7,443 


State Totals 


493,342 


94,042 


404,909 


498,951 



255 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 





Begin 




Pending 




7/1/91 


District 1 




Camden 


11 


Chowan 


197 


Currituck 


93 


Dare 


562 


Gates 


27 


Pasquotank 


415 


Perquimans 


68 


District Total 


1,373 


District 2 




Beaufort 


330 


Hyde 


54 


Martin 


203 


Tyrrell 


33 


Washington 


62 


District Total 


682 


District 3A 




Pitt 


3,355 


District 3B 




Carteret 


1,482 


Craven 


1,843 


Pamlico 


123 


District Total 


3,448 


District 4 




Duplin 


554 


Jones 


70 


Onslow 


2,510 


Sampson 


577 


District Total 


3,711 


DLstrict 5 




New Hanover 


3,252 


Pender 


325 


District Total 


3,577 


District 6A 




Halifax 


1,092 



Filed 

194 
1,144 

827 
3,132 

417 
3,394 

516 

9,624 



4,147 
529 

2,050 
430 

1,046 

8,202 



17,836 



6,450 
9.061 
1,019 

16,530 



3,272 

834 

13,338 

4,657 

22,101 



16,268 
2,332 

18,600 



6,533 



Total 
Caseload 

205 
1,341 

920 
3,694 

444 
3,809 

584 

10,997 



4,477 
583 

2,253 
463 

1,108 

8,884 



21,191 



7,932 

10,904 

1,142 

19,978 



3,826 

904 

15,848 

5,234 

25,812 



19,520 
2,657 

22,177 



7,625 



Disposed 

178 
1,235 

845 
3,005 

412 
3,359 

491 

9,525 



4,146 
525 

2,106 
419 

1,058 

8,254 



16,343 



6,387 

8,833 

984 

16,204 



3,393 

816 

14,100 

4,768 

23,077 



16,176 
2,311 

18,487 



6,905 



% Caseload 
Disposed 

86.8% 
92.1% 
91.8% 
81.3% 
92.8% 
88.2% 
84.1% 

86.6% 



92.6% 
90.1% 
93.5% 
90.5% 
95.5% 

92.9% 



77.1% 



80.5% 
81.0% 
86.2% 

81.1% 



90.3% 
89.0% 
91.1% 

89.4% 



82.9% 
87.0% 

83.4% 
90.6% 



End 
Pending 
6/30/92 

27 
106 

75 
689 

32 
450 

93 

1,472 



331 
58 

147 
44 
50 

630 



4,848 



1,545 

2,071 

158 

3,774 



433 

88 

1,748 

466 

2,735 



3,344 
346 

3,690 
720 



256 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Julyl, 1991 --June 30, 1992 





Begin 




Pending 




7/1/91 


District 6B 




Bertie 


133 


Hertford 


252 


Northampton 


153 


District Total 


538 


District 7 




Edgecombe 


1,875 


Nash 


2,585 


Wilson 


2,907 


District Total 


7,367 


District 8 




Greene 


160 


Lenoir 


1,626 


Wayne 


2,081 


District Total 


3,867 


District 9 




Franklin 


386 


Granville 


396 


Person 


503 


Vance 


618 


Warren 


190 


District Total 


2,093 


District 10 




Wake 


10,280 


District 11 




Harnett 


1,014 


Johnston 


1,225 


Lee 


824 


District Total 


3,063 


District 12 




Cumberland 


5,989 


District 13 




Bladen 


524 


Brunswick 


689 


Columbus 


530 


District Total 


1,743 



Filed 

1,912 
2,618 
1,636 

6,166 



8,964 

12,133 

8,339 

29,436 



809 
6,493 
8,708 

16,010 



3,276 
3,228 
2,725 
5,173 
1,480 

15,882 



40,794 



6,305 
8,030 
6,728 

21,063 



25,843 



3,061 
4,485 
4,908 

12,454 



Total 
Caseload 

2,045 
2,870 
1,789 

6,704 



10,839 
14,718 
11,246 

36,803 



969 

8,119 

10,789 

19,877 



3,662 
3,624 
3,228 
5,791 
1,670 

17,975 



51,074 



7,319 
9,255 
7,552 

24,126 



31,832 



3,585 
5,174 
5,438 

14,197 



Disposed 

1,805 
2,520 
1,604 

5,929 



8,338 

12,022 

8,882 

29,242 



823 
6,705 
8,796 

16,324 



3,207 
3,213 
2,793 
5,138 
1,514 

15,865 



35,463 



6,316 
7,829 
6,613 

20,758 



26,852 



3,162 
4,548 
4,775 

12,485 



% Caseload 
Disposed 

88.3% 
87.8% 
89.7% 

88.4% 



76.9% 
81.7% 
79.0% 

79.5% 



84.9% 
82.6% 
81.5% 

82.1% 



87.6% 
88.7% 
86.5% 
88.7% 
90.7% 

88.3% 



69.4% 



86.3% 
84.6% 
87.6% 

86.0% 



84.4% 



88.2% 
87.9% 
87.8% 

87.9% 



End 
Pending 
6/30/92 

240 
350 
185 

775 



2,501 
2,696 
2,364 

7,561 



146 
1,414 
1,993 

3,553 



455 
411 
435 
653 
156 

2,110 



15,611 



1,003 

1,426 

939 

3,368 



4,980 



423 
626 
663 

1,712 



257 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 



District 14 

Durham 


Begin 
Pending 

7/1/91 

4,836 


Filed 

17,087 


Total 
Caseload 

21,923 


Disposed 

17,561 


% Caseload 
Disposed 

80.1% 


End 
Pending 
6/30/92 

4,362 


District 15A 

Alamance 


1,482 


10,565 


12,047 


10,690 


88.7% 


1,357 


District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 


370 
974 


2,629 
5,866 


2,999 
6,840 


2,585 
5,837 


86.2% 
85.3% 


414 
1,003 


District Total 


1,344 


8,495 


9,839 


8,422 


85.6% 


1,417 


District 16A 
Hoke 

Scotland 


447 
690 


2,768 
5,516 


3,215 
6,206 


2,628 
5,312 


81.7% 
85.6% 


587 
894 


District Total 


1,137 


8,284 


9,421 


7,940 


84.3% 


1,481 


District 16B 

Robeson 


2,309 


15,234 


17,543 


14,925 


85.1% 


2,618 


District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 


80 

933 


1,107 
7,058 


1,187 
7,991 


1,054 
7,188 


88.8% 
90.0% 


133 
803 


District Total 


1,013 


8,165 


9,178 


8,242 


89.8% 


936 


District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 


405 
954 


2,887 
4,538 


3,292 
5,492 


2,801 
4,839 


85.1% 
88.1% 


491 
653 


District Total 


1,359 


7,425 


8,784 


7,640 


87.0% 


1,144 


District 18 

Guilford 


18,699 


44,187 


62,886 


45,063 


71.7% 


17,823 


District 19A 

Cabarrus 


896 


8,533 


9,429 


8,334 


88.4% 


1,095 


District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 


512 
1,503 


2,682 
7,167 


3,194 
8,670 


2,642 
7,046 


82.7% 
81.3% 


552 
1,624 


District Total 


2,015 


9,849 


11,864 


9,688 


81.7% 


2,176 


District 19C 

Rowan 


948 


7,238 


8,186 


7,168 


87.6% 


1,018 



258 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1,1991 --June 30, 1992 



District 20 

Anson 
Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 



Begin 
Pending 

7/1/91 

349 
551 
617 
349 
640 



Filed 

2.628 
5,692 
5,843 
3,192 
6,712 



Total 
Caseload 

2.977 
6,243 
6,460 
3,541 
7,352 



Disposed 

2,713 
5,460 
5,680 
3,168 
6,545 





End 


% Caseload 


Pending 


Disposed 


6/30/92 


91.1% 


264 


87.5% 


783 


87.9% 


780 


89.5% 


373 


89.0% 


807 



District Total 



2,506 



24,067 



26,573 



23,566 



88.7% 



3,007 



District 21 

Forsyth 



3,060 



27,157 



30,217 



26,574 



87.9% 



3,643 



District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 



370 

1,624 

289 

1,541 



2,058 

11,868 

1,702 

9,501 



2,428 
13,492 

1,991 
11,042 



2,114 

12,005 

1,628 

9,579 



87.1% 
89.0% 
81.8% 
86.8% 



314 
1,487 

363 
1,463 



District Total 



3,824 



25,129 



28,953 



25,326 



87.5% 



3,627 



District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 



145 
104 
808 
125 



478 
1,152 
4,147 
1,188 



623 
1,256 
4,955 
1,313 



527 
1,083 
4,245 
1,079 



84.6% 
86.2% 
85.7% 
82.2% 



96 
173 
710 
234 



District Total 



1,182 



6,965 



8,147 



6,934 



85.1% 



1,213 



District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



294 
237 
137 
389 
98 



1,084 
732 
567 

2,769 
514 



1,378 
969 
704 

3,158 
612 



1,111 
800 
586 

2,628 
432 



80.6% 
82.6% 
83.2% 
83.2% 
70.6% 



267 
169 
118 
530 
180 



District Total 



1,155 



5,666 



6,821 



5,557 



81.5% 



1,264 



District 25 
Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 



717 

564 

1,278 



5,504 
4,397 
9.228 



6,221 

4,961 

10,506 



5,472 
4,423 
9,017 



88.0% 
89.2% 
85.8% 



749 

538 

1,489 



District Total 



2,559 



19.129 



21,688 



18,912 



87.2% 



2,776 



District 26 

Mecklenburg 



11,299 



45,981 



57,280 



46,680 



81.5% 



10,600 



District 27A 

Gaston 



5,554 



16,351 



21,905 



16,803 



76.7% 



5,102 



259 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/91 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/92 


District 27B 














Cleveland 


834 


5,434 


6,268 


5,425 


86.6% 


843 


Lincoln 


435 


3,134 


3,569 


3,189 


89.4% 


380 


District Total 


1,269 


8,568 


9,837 


8,614 


87.6% 


1,223 


District 28 














Buncombe 


3,691 


16,097 


19,788 


15,817 


79.9% 


3,971 


District 29 














Henderson 


1,258 


4,879 


6,137 


5,372 


87.5% 


765 


McDowell 


454 


2,338 


2,792 


2,291 


82.1% 


501 


Polk 


91 


734 


825 


678 


82.2% 


147 


Rutherford 


1,184 


5,104 


6,288 


4,796 


76.3% 


1,492 


Transylvania 


244 


1,641 


1,885 


1,716 


91.0% 


169 


District Total 


3,231 


14,696 


17,927 


14,853 


82.9% 


3,074 


District 30 














Cherokee 


178 


1,210 


1,388 


1,251 


90.1% 


137 


Clay 


87 


365 


452 


411 


90.9% 


41 


Graham 


131 


699 


830 


751 


90.5% 


79 


Haywood 


380 


2,654 


3,034 


2,577 


84.9% 


457 


Jackson 


157 


1,201 


1,35c 


1,181 


87.0% 


177 


Macon 


116 


995 


1,111 


951 


85.6% 


160 


Swain 


76 


523 


599 


505 


84.3% 


94 


District Total 


1,125 


7,647 


8,772 


7,627 


86.9% 


1,145 


State Totals 


128,671 


629,589 


758,260 


624,649 


82.4% 


133,611 



260 



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

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Misdemeanors 



Other (45,042) 



Waiver (63,684) 



D. A. Dismissal (186,378) 




Guilty Plea (217,885) 



Not Guilty Plea (Trial) 
(38,160) 



Felony Probable Cause Matters 



Probable Cause Hearing 
Waived (23,352) 



Probable Cause Not 
Found (3,401) 




Heard and Bound 
Over (6,642) 



Superseding Indictment 
(40,105) 



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 six years, from 34.1% in 
1986-87 to 54.6% this year. 



261 



i 



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

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

















Felony 






Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guiltv Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 1 


















Camden 


6 


37 


8 


40 


44 


25 


18 


178 


Chowan 


no 


469 


72 


128 


288 


78 


90 


1,235 


Currituck 


28 


164 


13 


86 


236 


224 


94 


845 


Dare 


101 


782 


116 


222 


825 


715 


244 


3,005 


Gates 


37 


127 


5 


41 


77 


59 


66 


412 


Pasquotank 


311 


1,392 


23 


333 


889 


164 


247 


3,359 


Perquimans 


12 


124 


8 


81 


153 


75 


38 


491 


District Totals 


605 


3,095 


245 


931 


2,512 


1,340 


797 


9,525 




6.4% 


32.5% 


2.6% 


9.8% 


26.4% 


14.1% 


8.4% 


100.0% 


District 2 


















Beaufort 


527 


1,500 


256 


456 


476 


425 


506 


4,146 


Hyde 


16 


102 


17 


86 


45 


186 


73 


525 


Martin 


347 


687 


25 


285 


220 


224 


318 


2,106 


Tyrrell 


7 


141 


20 


79 


47 


73 


52 


419 


Washington 


239 


262 


44 


136 


69 


124 


184 


1,058 


District Totals 


1,136 


2,692 


362 


1,042 


857 


1,032 


1,133 


8,254 




13.8% 


32.6% 


4.4% 


12.6% 


10.4% 


12.5% 


13.7% 


100.0% 


District 3A 


















Pitt 


3,316 


5,821 


424 


699 


3,652 


497 


1,934 


16,343 




20.3% 


35.6% 


2.6% 


4.3% 


22.3% 


3.0% 


11.8% 


100.0% 


District 3B 


















Carteret 


723 


1,717 


624 


240 


2,046 


510 


527 


6,387 


Craven 


1,549 


2,886 


66 


411 


2,406 


612 


903 


8,833 


Pamlico 


35 


261 


8 


48 


271 


168 


193 


984 


District Totals 


2,307 


4,864 


698 


699 


4,723 


1,290 


1,623 


16,204 




14.2% 


30.0% 


4.3% 


4.3% 


29.1% 


8.0% 


10.0% 


100.0% 


District 4 


















Duplin 


493 


1,042 


37 


129 


742 


336 


614 


3,393 


Jones 


2 ') 


252 





39 


144 


177 


175 


816 


Onslow 


2,630 


5,436 


171 


408 


2,722 


758 


1,975 


14,100 


Sampson 


854 


1,834 


62 


131 


1,142 


146 


599 


4,768 


District Totals 


4,006 


8,564 


270 


707 


4,750 


1,417 


3,363 


23,077 




17.4% 


37.1% 


1.2% 


3.1% 


20.6% 


6.1% 


14.6% 


100.0% 



262 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 

NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

















Felony 






Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 5 


















New Hanover 


1,180 


7,306 


249 


855 


2,853 


2,151 


1,582 


16,176 


Pender 


96 


752 


30 


173 


675 


262 


323 


2,311 


District Totals 


1,276 


8,058 


279 


1,028 


3,528 


2,413 


1,905 


18,487 




6.9% 


43.6% 


1.5% 


5.6% 


19.1% 


13.1% 


10.3% 


100.0% 


District 6A 


















Halifax 


495 


2,393 


367 


666 


1,220 


567 


1,197 


6,905 




7.2% 


34.7% 


5.3% 


9.6% 


17.7% 


8.2% 


17.3% 


100.0% 


District 6B 


















Bertie 


85 


524 


11 


265 


409 


193 


318 


1,805 


Hertford 


223 


793 


16 


242 


548 


264 


434 


2,520 


Northampton 


74 


488 


68 


212 


375 


174 


213 


1,604 


District Totals 


382 


1,805 


05 


719 


1,332 


631 


965 


5,929 




6.4% 


30.4% 


1.6% 


12.1% 


22.5% 


10.6% 


16.3% 


100.0% 


District 7 


















Edgecombe 


1,130 


2,748 


204 


790 


1,865 


354 


1,247 


8,338 


Nash 


2,577 


4,191 


235 


637 


2,817 


363 


1,202 


12,022 


Wilson 


1,168 


3,018 


179 


488 


2,616 


361 


1,052 


8,882 


District Totals 


4,875 


9,957 


618 


1,915 


7,298 


1,078 


3,501 


29,242 




16.7% 


34.1% 


2.1% 


6.5% 


25.0% 


3.7% 


12.0% 


100.0% 


District 8 


















Greene 


27 


189 


70 


56 


236 


91 


154 


823 


Lenoir 


617 


2,085 


38 


424 


2,417 


598 


526 


6,705 


Wayne 


1,385 


2,561 


32 


371 


3,128 


442 


877 


8,796 


District Totals 


2,029 


4,835 


140 


851 


5,781 


1,131 


1,557 


16,324 




12.4% 


29.6% 


0.9% 


5.2% 


35.4% 


6.9% 


9.5% 


100.0% 


District 9 


















Franklin 


419 


1,111 


63 


378 


556 


137 


543 


3,207 


Granville 


384 


1,282 


57 


324 


544 


227 


395 


3,213 


Person 


320 


1,078 


111 


244 


423 


226 


391 


2,793 


Vance 


438 


2,078 


72 


480 


1,097 


322 


651 


5,138 


Warren 


144 


431 


12 


249 


226 


105 


347 


1,514 


District Totals 


1,705 


5,980 


315 


1,675 


2,846 


1,017 


2,327 


15,865 




10.7% 


37.7% 


2.0% 


10.6% 


17.9% 


6.4% 


14.7% 


100.0% 



263 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 

NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

















Felony 






Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guiltv Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 10 


















Wake 


5,421 


9,627 


1,358 


1,951 


9,050 


2,564 


5,492 


35,463 




15.3% 


27.1% 


3.8% 


5.5% 


25.5% 


7.2% 


15.5% 


100.0% 


District 11 


















Harnett 


1,132 


2,048 


45 


232 


1,614 


603 


642 


6,316 


Johnston 


1,149 


2,999 


108 


274 


1,781 


667 


851 


7,829 


Lee 


1,063 


2,243 


87 


228 


1,958 


359 


675 


6,613 


District Totals 


3,344 


7,290 


240 


734 


5,353 


1,629 


2,168 


20,758 


- 


16.1% 


35.1% 


1.2% 


3.5% 


25.8% 


7.8% 


10.4% 


100.0% 


District 12 


















Cumberland 


4,948 


8,313 


60 


1,600 


7,978 


542 


3,411 


26,852 




18.4% 


31.0% 


0.2% 


6.0% 


29.7% 


2.0% 


12.7% 


100.0% 


District 13 


















Bladen 


376 


905 


30 


290 


869 


373 


319 


3,162 


Brunswick 


343 


1,349 


178 


308 


1,780 


222 


368 


4,548 


Columbus 


786 


1,736 


17 


238 


1,469 


282 


247 


4,775 


District Totals 


1,505 


3,990 


225 


836 


4,118 


877 


934 


12,485 




12.1% 


32.0% 


1.8% 


6.7% 


33.0% 


7.0% 


7.5% 


100.0% 


District 14 


















Durham 


1,172 


6,899 


4 


674 


5,433 


1,251 


2,128 


17,561 




6.7% 


39.3% 


0.0% 


3.8% 


30.9% 


7.1% 


12.1% 


100.0% 


District 15A 


















Alamance 


804 


3,746 


388 


799 


1,842 


572 


2,539 


10,690 




7.5% 


35.0% 


3.6% 


7.5% 


17.2% 


5.4% 


23.8% 


100.0% 


District 15B 


















Chatham 


162 


736 


31 


126 


677 


574 


279 


2,585 


Orange 


465 


1,790 


69 


224 


2,182 


386 


721 


5,837 


District Totals 


627 


2,526 


100 


350 


2,859 


960 


1,000 


8,422 




7.4% 


30.0% 


1.2% 


4.2% 


33.9% 


11.4% 


11.9% 


100.0% 


District 16A 


















Hoke 


278 


744 


17 


435 


564 


170 


420 


2,628 


Scotland 


553 


2,037 


<)() 


432 


977 


501 


722 


5,312 


District Totals 


831 


2,781 


107 


867 


1,541 


671 


1,142 


7,940 




10.5% 


35.0% 


1.3% 


10.9% 


19.4% 


8.5% 


14.4% 


100.0% 



264 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 

NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 

















Felony 






Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Cuiltv Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 16B 


















Robeson 


1,460 


5,769 


326 


1,505 


1,722 


1,200 


2,943 


14,925 




9.8% 


38.7% 


2.2% 


10.1% 


11.5% 


8.0% 


19.7% 


100.0% 


District 17A 


















Caswell 


31 


302 


53 


221 


175 


117 


155 


1,054 


Rockingham 


310 


2,644 


61 


920 


1,182 


751 


1,320 


7,188 


District Totals 


341 


2,946 


114 


1,141 


1,357 


868 


1,475 


8,242 




4.1% 


35.7% 


1.4% 


13.8% 


16.5% 


10.5% 


17.9% 


100.0% 


District 17B 


















Stokes 


257 


851 


38 


147 


662 


369 


477 


2,801 


Surry 


452 


1,588 


145 


343 


1,147 


467 


697 


4,839 


District Totals 


709 


2,439 


183 


490 


1,809 


836 


1,174 


7,640 




9.3% 


31.9% 


2.4% 


6.4% 


23.7% 


10.9% 


15.4% 


100.0% 


District 18 


















Guilford 


1,741 


13,548 


1,694 


1,370 


19,636 


1,854 


5,220 


45,063 




3.9% 


30.1% 


3.8% 


3.0% 


43.6% 


4.1% 


11.6% 


100.0% 


District 19A 


















Cabarrus 


1,221 


2,726 


65 


975 


1,532 


605 


1,210 


8,334 




14.7% 


32.7% 


0.8% 


11.7% 


18.4% 


7.3% 


14.5% 


100.0% 


District 19B 


















Montgomery 


219 


646 


318 


234 


857 


68 


300 


2,642 


Randolph 


880 


2,400 


15 


357 


2,186 


268 


940 


7,046 


District Totals 


1,099 


3,046 


333 


591 


3,043 


336 


1,240 


9,688 




11.3% 


31.4% 


3.4% 


6.1% 


31.4% 


3.5% 


12.8% 


100.0% 


District 19C 


















Rowan 


87 


2,173 


69 


905 


2,033 


637 


1,264 


7,168 




1.2% 


30.3% 


1.0% 


12.6% 


28.4% 


8.9% 


17.6% 


100.0% 



265 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 

NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

















Felony 






Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guilty Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 20 


















Anson 


153 


736 


106 


383 


649 


191 


495 


2,713 


Moore 


1,322 


1,360 


119 


490 


1,088 


263 


818 


5,460 


Richmond 


396 


1,807 


78 


684 


1,213 


474 


1,028 


5,680 


Stanly 


289 


1,034 


21 


486 


601 


344 


393 


3,168 


Union 


890 


2,103 


127 


616 


1,396 


533 


880 


6,545 


District Totals 


3,050 


7,040 


451 


2,659 


4,947 


1,805 


3,614 


23,566 




12.9% 


29.9% 


1.9% 


11.3% 


21.0% 


7.7% 


15.3% 


100.0% 


District 21 


















Forsyth 


2,242 


10,770 





2,183 


7,829 


1,007 


2,543 


26,574 




8.4% 


40.5% 


0.0% 


8.2% 


29.5% 


3.8% 


9.6% 


100.0% 


District 22 


















Alexander 


174 


697 


10 


78 


692 


304 


159 


2,114 


Davidson 


378 


3,300 


96 


466 


6,323 


680 


762 


12,005 


Davie 


116 


631 





91 


586 


86 


118 


1,628 


Iredell 


394 


3,587 


267 


433 


3,384 


597 


917 


9,579 


District Totals 


1,062 


8,215 


373 


1,068 


10,985 


1,667 


1,956 


25,326 




4.2% 


32.4% 


1.5% 


4.2% 


43.4% 


6.6% 


7.7% 


100.0% 


District 23 


















Alleghany 


46 


165 


23 


39 


155 


63 


36 


527 


Ashe 


156 


277 


54 


135 


186 


164 


111 


1,083 


Wilkes 


502 


1,568 


142 


434 


867 


327 


405 


4,245 


Yadkin 


83 


379 


49 


131 


186 


107 


144 


1,079 


District Totals 


787 


2,389 


268 


739 


1,394 


661 


696 


6,934 




11.3% 


34.5% 


3.9% 


10.7% 


20.1% 


9.5% 


10.0% 


100.0% 


District 24 


















Avery 


105 


174 


30 


38 


501 


203 


60 


1,111 


Madison 


37 


160 


18 


40 


451 


47 


47 


800 


Mitchell 


70 


129 


16 


37 


227 


56 


51 


586 


Watauga 


518 


510 


156 


101 


795 


359 


189 


2,628 


Yancey 


30 


89 


2 


30 


166 


81 


34 


432 


District Totals 


760 


1,062 


222 


246 


2,140 


746 


381 


5,557 




13.7% 


19.1% 


4.0% 


4.4% 


38.5% 


13.4% 


6.9% 


100.0% 



266 



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

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

















Felony 






Worthless 






Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guiltv Plea 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 

DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 25 


















Burke 


694 


1,857 


16 


287 


1,396 


653 


569 


5,472 


Caldwell 


464 


1,381 


204 


206 


1,111 


302 


755 


4,423 


Catawba 


1,050 


2,764 


125 


387 


2,701 


847 


1,143 


9,017 


District Totals 


2,208 


6,002 


345 


880 


5,208 


1,802 


2,467 


18,912 




11.7% 


31.7% 


1.8% 


4.7% 


27.5% 


9.5% 


13.0% 


100.0% 


District 26 


















Mecklenburg 


1,136 


13,463 


3 


1,352 


24,871 


4,884 


971 


46,680 




2.4% 


28.8% 


0.0% 


2.9% 


53.3% 


10.5% 


2.1% 


100.0% 


District 27A 


















Gaston 


467 


3,846 


391 


718 


8,112 


980 


2,289 


16,803 




2.8% 


22.9% 


2.3% 


4.3% 


48.3% 


5.8% 


13.6% 


100.0% 


District 27B 


















Cleveland 


406 


1,872 


102 


450 


1,409 


577 


609 


5,425 


Lincoln 


411 


901 


54 


222 


685 


458 


458 


3,189 


District Totals 


817 


2,773 


156 


672 


2,094 


1,035 


1,067 


8,614 




9.5% 


32.2% 


1.8% 


7.8% 


24.3% 


12.0% 


12.4% 


100.0% 


District 28 


















Buncombe 


2,072 


6,502 


206 


509 


4,143 


1,071 


1,314 


15,817 




13.1% 


41.1% 


1.3% 


3.2% 


26.2% 


6.8% 


8.3% 


100.0% 


District 29 


















Henderson 


500 


1,956 


206 


214 


1,869 


143 


484 


5,372 


McDowell 


96 


890 


201 


130 


676 


82 


216 


2,291 


Polk 


9 


241 


4 


38 


288 


53 


45 


678 


Rutherford 


262 


1,801 


215 


607 


1,139 


191 


581 


4,796 


Transylvania 


128 


584 


47 


77 


425 


245 


210 


1,716 


District Totals 


995 


5,472 


673 


1,066 


4,397 


714 


1,536 


14,853 




6.7% 


36.8% 


4.5% 


7.2% 


29.6% 


4.8% 


10.3% 


100.0% 


District 30 


















Cherokee 


110 


353 


9 


65 


438 


116 


160 


1,251 


Clay 


16 


70 


3 


22 


56 


159 


85 


411 


Graham 


11 


114 


1 


45 


223 


139 


218 


751 


Haywood 


233 


862 


50 


121 


930 


117 


264 


2,577 


Jackson 


108 


298 


15 


41 


377 


200 


142 


1,181 


Macon 


132 


268 


55 


34 


271 


78 


113 


951 


Swain 


36 


128 


75 


20 


158 


46 


42 


505 


District Totals 


646 


2,093 


208 


348 


2,453 


855 


1,024 


7,627 




8.5% 


27.4% 


2.7% 


4.6% 


32.2% 


11.2% 


13.4% 


100.0% 


State Totals 


63,684 


205,510 


12,375 


38,160 


186,378 


45,042 


73,500 


624,649 




10.2% 


32.9% 


2.0% 


6.1% 


29.8% 


7.2% 


11.8% 


100.0% 



267 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 







Ages 


of Pending 


Cases (Days) 






Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


District 1 




















Camden 


21 


3 





3 








27 


65.1 


41.0 


Chowan 


86 


2 


3 


2 


2 


11 


106 


155.0 


27.0 


Currituck 


6? 


2 


9 


1 








75 


49.2 


32.0 


Dare 


611 


16 


25 


29 


7 


1 


689 


46.4 


19.0 


Gates 


31 


1 














32 


31.1 


30.0 


Pasquotank 


343 


25 


29 


39 


14 





450 


68.0 


27.0 


Perquimans 


70 


4 


9 


7 


2 


1 


93 


85.2 


41.0 


District Totals 


1,225 


53 


75 


81 


25 


13 


1,472 


63.4 


26.5 




83.2% 


3.6% 


5.1% 


5.5% 


1.7% 


0.9% 


100.0% 






District 2 




















Beaufort 


301 


11 


16 


3 








331 


37.7 


26.0 


Hyde 


52 


1 


4 


1 








58 


39.6 


28.0 


Martin 


122 


4 


15 


5 


1 





147 


48.9 


21.0 


Tyrrell 


30 


6 


5 


3 








44 


60.6 


36.5 


Washington 


48 





2 











50 


30.7 


15.0 


District Totals 


553 


22 


42 


12 


1 





630 


41.5 


26.0 




87.8% 


3.5% 


6.7% 


1.9% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 3A 




















Pitt 


2,960 


625 


536 


461 


261 


5 


4,848 


105.2 


63.0 




61.1% 


12.9% 


11.1% 


9.5% 


5.4% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 3B 




















Carteret 


1,071 


105 


156 


141 


63 


9 


1,545 


96.4 


50.0 


Craven 


1,179 


206 


250 


334 


100 


2 


2,071 


113.8 


69.0 


Pamlico 


107 


11 


24 


12 


1 


3 


158 


88.7 


46.0 


District Totals 


2,357 


322 


430 


487 


164 


14 


3,774 


105.6 


57.0 




62.5% 


8.5% 


11.4% 


12.9% 


4.3% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 4 




















Duplin 


352 


38 


35 


5 


3 





433 


51.5 


34.0 


Jones 


60 


17 


7 


4 








88 


65.8 


48.0 


Onslow 


1,193 


119 


186 


207 


32 


11 


1,748 


92.7 


55.0 


Sampson 


379 


25 


48 


12 


2 





466 


59.6 


40.0 


District Totals 


1,984 


199 


276 


228 


37 


11 


2,735 


79.7 


48.0 




72.5% 


7.3% 


10.1% 


8.3% 


1.4% 


0.4% 


100.0% 







268 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 







Ages 


of Pending 


Cases (Days) 






Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


1,640 


162 


261 


382 


448 


451 


3,344 


288.1 


97.0 


Pender 


213 


12 


26 


30 


46 


10 


346 


145.6 


48.5 


District Totals 


1,853 


174 


287 


421 


494 


461 


3,690 


274.7 


90.0 




50.2% 


4.7% 


7.8% 


11.4% 


13.4% 


12.5% 


100.0% 






District 6A 




















Halifax 


599 


60 


42 


14 


4 


1 


720 


52.2 


34.0 




83.2% 


8.3% 


5.8% 


1.9% 


0.6% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 6B 




















Bertie 


145 


11 


10 


33 


35 


6 


240 


156.7 


42.0 


Hertford 


268 


27 


24 


16 


12 


3 


350 


76.4 


34.0 


Northampton 


132 


21 


10 


17 


5 





185 


75.4 


32.0 


District Totals 


545 


59 


44 


66 


52 


9 


775 


101.0 


34.0 




70.3% 


7.6% 


5.7% 


8.5% 


6.7% 


1.2% 


100.0% 






District 7 




















Edgecombe 


1,303 


217 


273 


378 


207 


123 


2,501 


176.2 


85.0 


Nash 


1,625 


247 


318 


276 


122 


108 


2,696 


128.2 


62.0 


Wilson 


1,274 


241 


282 


342 


132 


93 


2,364 


152.9 


83.0 


District Totals 


4,202 


705 


873 


996 


461 


324 


7,561 


151.8 


75.0 




55.6% 


9.3% 


11.5% 


13.2% 


6.1% 


4.3% 


100.0% 






District 8 




















Greene 


87 


12 


22 


18 


6 


1 


146 


108.4 


63.0 


Lenoir 


1,045 


137 


90 


94 


48 





1,414 


80.0 


48.5 


Wayne 


1,187 


186 


295 


255 


55 


15 


1,993 


105.7 


68.0 


District Totals 


2,319 


335 


407 


367 


109 


16 


3,553 


95.6 


57.0 




65.3% 


9.4% 


11.5% 


10.3% 


3.1% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 9 




















Franklin 


366 


16 


19 


28 


23 


3 


455 


82.4 


32.0 


Granville 


311 


13 


21 


36 


30 





411 


88.7 


28.0 


Person 


306 


19 


26 


53 


29 


2 


435 


103.6 


33.0 


Vance 


481 


33 


66 


3Q 


25 


9 


653 


94.2 


39.0 


Warren 


126 


10 


6 


11 





3 


156 


98.0 


33.0 


District Totals 


1,590 


91 


138 


167 


107 


17 


2,110 


92.8 


33.0 




75.4% 


4.3% 


6.5% 


7.9% 


5.1% 


0.8% 


100.0% 







269 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) Total Mean 



Median 





0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Pending 


Age (Days) 


Age(E 


District 10 




















Wake 


6,249 


1,172 


2,120 


2,712 


1,303 


2,055 


15,611 


325.4 


130.0 




40.0% 


7.5% 


13.6% 


17.4% 


8.3% 


13.2% 


100.0% 






District 11 




















Harnett 


665 


133 


63 


103 


24 


15 


1,003 


100.9 


50.0 


Johnston 


1,024 


124 


112 


121 


42 


3 


1,426 


77.1 


28.0 


Lee 


779 


38 


47 


43 


32 





939 


60.6 


25.0 


District Totals 


2,468 


295 


222 


267 


98 


18 


3,368 


79.6 


33.0 




73.3% 


8.8% 


6.6% 


7.9% 


2.9% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 12 




















Cumberland 


3,238 


463 


521 


423 


221 


114 


4,980 


121.5 


60.0 




65.0% 


9.3% 


10.5% 


8.5% 


4.4% 


2.3% 


100.0% 






District 13 




















Bladen 


339 


16 


29 


29 


9 


1 


423 


69.9 


28.0 


Brunswick 


528 


35 


21 


27 


10 


5 


626 


59.3 


28.0 


Columbus 


503 


47 


57 


37 


19 





663 


72.1 


39.0 


District Totals 


1,370 


98 


107 


93 


38 


6 


1,712 


66.9 


32.0 




80.0% 


5.7% 


6.3% 


5.4% 


2.2% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 14 




















Durham 


2,194 


343 


502 


555 


563 


205 


4,362 


188.4 


90.0 




50.3% 


7.9% 


11.5% 


12.7% 


12.9% 


4.7% 


100.0% 






District 15A 




















Alamance 


960 


92 


85 


157 


45 


18 


1,357 


98.0 


42.0 




70.7% 


6.8% 


6.3% 


11.6% 


3.3% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






District 15B 




















Chatham 


333 


22 


21 


20 


18 





414 


70.6 


33.0 


Orange 


673 


35 


87 


126 


31 


1 


1,003 


94.7 


55.0 


District Totals 


1,006 


107 


108 


146 


49 


1 


1,417 


87.6 


48.0 




71.0% 


7.6% 


7.6% 


10.3% 


3.5% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 16A 




















Hoke 


413 


A(> 


76 


32 


17 


3 


587 


81.9 


42.0 


Scotland 


717 


79 


44 


49 


5 





894 


55.2 


33.0 


District Totals 


1,130 


125 


120 


81 


22 


3 


1,481 


65.8 


35.0 




76.3% 


8.4% 


8.1% 


5.5% 


1.5% 


0.2% 


100.0% 







270 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) Total 



Mean 



Median 





0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Pending 


Age (Days) 


Age(C 


District 16B 




















Robeson 


1,850 


229 


175 


144 


188 


32 


2,618 


102.1 


41.0 




70.7% 


8.7% 


6.7% 


5.5% 


7.2% 


1.2% 


100.0% 






District 17A 




















Caswell 


114 


15 


2 


1 


1 





133 


38.6 


25.0 


Rockingham 


641 


25 


34 


59 


38 


6 


803 


79.3 


26.0 


District Totals 


755 


40 


36 


60 


39 


6 


936 


73.5 


25.0 




80.7% 


4.3% 


3.8% 


6.4% 


4.2% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






District 17B 




















Stokes 


374 


21 


29 


35 


27 


5 


491 


92.5 


41.0 


Surry 


532 


51 


40 


16 


8 


6 


653 


68.3 


35.0 


District Totals 


906 


72 


69 


51 


35 


11 


1,144 


78.7 


35.0 




79.2% 


6.3% 


6.0% 


4.5% 


3.1% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






District 18 




















Guilford 


7,271 


1,890 


2,323 


3,154 


2,248 


937 


17,823 


215.7 


117.0 




40.8% 


10.6% 


13.0% 


17.7% 


12.6% 


5.3% 


100.0% 






District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


965 


54 


59 


17 








1,095 


39.0 


25.0 




88.1% 


4.9% 


5.4% 


1.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 19B 




















Montgomery 


369 


21 


24 


82 


36 


20 


552 


145.3 


47.0 


Randolph 


1,213 


120 


124 


118 


49 





1,624 


76.1 


42.0 


District Totals 


1,582 


141 


148 


200 


85 


20 


2,176 


93.7 


43.0 




72.7% 


6.5% 


6.8% 


9.2% 


3.9% 


0.9% 


100.0% 






District 19C 




















Rowan 


866 


68 


42 


36 


6 





1,018 


47.2 


26.0 




85.1% 


6.7% 


4.1% 


3.5% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 20 




















Anson 


186 


20 


10 


23 


4 


21 


264 


143.3 


34.0 


Moore 


450 


43 


30 


112 


108 


40 


783 


184.1 


60.0 


Richmond 


604 


35 


63 


41 


14 


23 


780 


96.3 


27.5 


Stanly 


315 


27 


29 


2 








373 


38.0 


20.0 


Union 


614 


41 


42 


73 


33 


4 


807 


80.6 


27.0 


District Totals 


2,169 


166 


174 


251 


159 


88 


3,007 


111.9 


32.0 




72.1% 


5.5% 


5.8% 


8.3% 


5.3% 


2.9% 


100.0% 







271 



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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 







Ages 


of Pending 


Cases (Days) 






Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


District 21 




















Forsyth 


2,618 


368 


409 


237 


11 





3,643 


64.8 


40.0 




71.9% 


10.1% 


11.2% 


6.5% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 22 




















Alexander 


275 


1Q 


13 


7 








314 


42.4 


15.0 


Davidson 


1,337 


75 


60 


15 








1,487 


40.1 


27.0 


Davie 


248 


37 


32 


44 


2 





363 


76.5 


50.0 


Iredell 


1,151 


131 


122 


56 


3 





1,463 


58.9 


35.0 


District Totals 


3,011 


262 


227 


122 


5 





3,627 


51.5 


32.0 




83.0% 


7.2% 


6.3% 


3.4% 


0.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 23 




















Alleghany 


71 


1 


21 


2 





1 


96 


73.2 


37.5 


Ashe 


116 


4 


3 


14 


17 


19 


173 


270.0 


61.0 


Wilkes 


448 


36 


36 


84 


82 


24 


710 


158.9 


55.0 


Yadkin 


189 


5 


34 


6 








234 


57.0 


43.0 


District Totals 


824 


46 


94 


106 


99 


44 


1,213 


148.3 


49.0 




67.9% 


3.8% 


7.7% 


8.7% 


8.2% 


3.6% 


100.0% 






District 24 




















Avery 


140 


50 


20 


35 


14 


8 


267 


159.5 


85.0 


Madison 


105 


11 


9 


20 


17 


7 


169 


175.4 


61.0 


Mitchell 


65 


2 


7 


24 


9 


11 


118 


204.1 


57.0 


Watauga 


285 


125 


33 


37 


50 





530 


111.3 


78.0 


Yancey 


106 


14 


3 


32 


22 


3 


180 


164.6 


64.0 


District Totals 


701 


202 


72 


148 


112 


29 


1,264 


146.3 


77.0 




55.5% 


16.0% 


5.7% 


11.7% 


8.9% 


2.3% 


100.0% 






District 25 




















Burke 


582 


69 


45 


35 


13 


5 


749 


73.4 


42.0 


Caldwell 


432 


35 


18 


23 


12 


18 


538 


96.4 


28.0 


Catawba 


1,143 


113 


175 


57 


1 





1,489 


58.8 


41.0 


District Totals 


2,157 


217 


238 


115 


26 


23 


2,776 


70.0 


40.0 




77.7% 


7.8% 


8.6% 


4.1% 


0.9% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 26 




















Mecklenburg 


4,893 


589 


747 


1,505 


1,341 


1,525 


10,600 


295.0 


111.0 




46.2% 


5.6% 


7.0% 


14.2% 


12.7% 


14.4% 


100.0% 






District 27A 




















Gaston 


3,009 


470 


627 


761 


194 


41 


5,102 


114.2 


71.0 




59.0% 


9.2% 


12.3% 


14.9% 

272 


3.8% 


0.8% 


100.0% 







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

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1992 







Ages 


of Pending 


Cases (Days) 






Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age (Days) 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


615 


51 


61 


S6 


27 


3 


843 


81.5 


41.0 


Lincoln 


296 


37 


24 


12 


10 


1 


380 


60.0 


28.0 


District Totals 


911 


88 


85 


98 


37 


4 


1,223 


74.8 


35.0 




74.5% 


7.2% 


7.0% 


8.0% 


3.0% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 28 




















Buncombe 


2,318 


385 


522 


621 


121 


4 


3,971 


106.1 


67.0 




58.4% 


9.7% 


13.1% 


15.6% 


3.0% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 29 




















Henderson 


534 


66 


73 


61 


28 


3 


765 


88.9 


43.0 


McDowell 


393 


21 


32 


28 


24 


3 


501 


78.3 


32.0 


Polk 


70 


14 


31 


30 


2 





147 


106.9 


98.0 


Rutherford 


667 


84 


89 


245 


220 


187 


1,492 


294.7 


118.0 


Transylvania 


121 


5 


15 


10 


12 


6 


169 


116.4 


32.0 


District Totals 


1,785 


190 


240 


374 


286 


199 


3,074 


189.4 


60.5 




58.1% 


6.2% 


7.8% 


12.2% 


9.3% 


6.5% 


100.0% 






District 30 




















Cherokee 


106 


16 


8 


2 





5 


137 


114.9 


27.0 


Clay 


33 


4 


2 


2 








41 


41.4 


15.0 


Graham 


53 


8 


5 


13 








79 


76.2 


34.0 


Haywood 


312 


50 


44 


31 


18 


2 


457 


92.5 


47.0 


Jackson 


151 


10 


7 


9 








177 


55.2 


35.0 


Macon 


144 


9 


4 


1 


1 


1 


160 


46.4 


28.0 


Swain 


82 


3 


9 











94 


40.3 


21.0 


District Totals 


881 


100 


79 


58 


19 


8 


1,145 


75.7 


35.0 




76.9% 


8.7% 


6.9% 


5.1% 


1.7% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


78,274 


10,917 


13,301 


15,792 


9,065 


6,262 


133,611 


165.2 


64.0 




58.6% 


8.2% 


10.0% 


11.8% 


6.8% 


4.7% 


100.0% 







273 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) Total Mean Median 





0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Disposed 


Age (Days) 


Age (Da; 


District 1 




















Camden 


169 


2 


3 


4 








178 


31.4 


24.0 


Chowan 


1,134 


34 


36 


31 








1,235 


33.6 


19.0 


Currituck 


770 


18 


44 


11 


2 





845 


38.9 


27.0 


Dare 


2,615 


117 


194 


76 


2 


1 


3,005 


46.9 


31.0 


Gates 


391 


12 


5 


4 








412 


33.5 


25.0 


Pasquotank 


3,001 


123 


143 


89 


3 





3,359 


45.0 


30.0 


Perquimans 


429 


31 


22 


9 








491 


45.2 


33.0 


District Totals 


8,509 


337 


447 


224 


7 


1 


9,525 


42.8 


28.0 




89.3% 


3.5% 


4.7% 


2.4% 


0.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 2 




















Beaufort 


3,954 


83 


49 


45 


14 


1 


4,146 


26.7 


14.5 


Hyde 


486 


25 


2 


9 


3 





525 


32.6 


20.0 


Martin 


1,991 


27 


20 


60 


3 


5 


2,106 


30.5 


14.0 


Tyrrell 


377 


31 


4 


7 








419 


39.4 


29.0 


Washington 


1,033 


12 


4 


9 








1,058 


21.6 


15.0 


District Totals 


7,841 


178 


79 


130 


20 


6 


8,254 


28.0 


15.0 




95.0% 


2.2% 


1.0% 


1.6% 


0.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 3A 




















Pitt 


11,516 


1,561 


1,950 


1,137 


179 





16,343 


76.1 


55.0 




70.5% 


9.6% 


11.9% 


7.0% 


1.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 3B 




















Carteret 


4,718 


421 


586 


434 


174 


54 


6,387 


82.7 


42.0 


Craven 


6,294 


688 


742 


878 


206 


25 


8,833 


80.4 


43.0 


Pamlico 


793 


71 


56 


56 


8 





984 


58.2 


35.0 


District Totals 


11,805 


1,180 


1,384 


1,368 


388 


79 


16,204 


80.0 


42.0 




72.9% 


7.3% 


8.5% 


8.4% 


2.4% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 4 




















Duplin 


2,829 


250 


191 


120 


3 





3,393 


51.1 


34.0 


Jones 


723 


40 


31 


20 


2 





816 


36.5 


15.0 


Onslow 


11,171 


912 


794 


891 


297 


35 


14,100 


65.6 


33.0 


Sampson 


3,888 


344 


310 


212 


13 


1 


4,768 


54.9 


35.0 


District Totals 


18,611 


1,546 


1,326 


1,243 


315 


36 


23,077 


60.2 


33.0 




80.6% 


6.7% 


5.7% 


5.4% 


1.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 







274 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 



Total 



Mean 



Median 





0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Disposed 


Age (Days) 


Age (Day 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


14,185 


516 


464 


513 


264 


234 


16,176 


59.3 


22.0 


Pender 


1,974 


105 


120 


72 


31 


9 


2,311 


51.6 


24.0 


District Totals 


16,159 


621 


584 


585 


295 


243 


18,487 


58.3 


22.0 




87.4% 


3.4% 


3.2% 


3.2% 


1.6% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






District 6A 




















Halifax 


6,055 


349 


289 


177 


33 


2 


6,905 


45.5 


30.0 




87.7% 


5.1% 


4.2% 


2.6% 


0.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 6B 




















Bertie 


1,696 


43 


33 


23 


9 


1 


1,805 


31.0 


20.0 


Hertford 


2,333 


83 


58 


38 


5 


3 


2,520 


36.0 


21.0 


Northampton 


1,460 


53 


39 


40 


12 





1,604 


36.5 


19.0 


District Totals 


5,489 


179 


130 


101 


26 


4 


5,929 


34.6 


20.0 




92.6% 


3.0% 


2.2% 


1.7% 


0.4% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 7 




















Edgecombe 


5,913 


773 


722 


700 


187 


43 


8,338 


85.3 


51.0 


Nash 


8,089 


1,167 


1,385 


1,031 


255 


95 


12,022 


94.2 


59.0 


Wilson 


5,041 


880 


954 


1,433 


491 


83 


8,882 


122.8 


70.0 


District Totals 


19,043 


2,820 


3,061 


3,164 


933 


221 


29,242 


100.3 


59.0 


- 


65.1% 


9.6% 


10.5% 


10.8% 


3.2% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 8 




















Greene 


626 


62 


59 


54 


20 


2 


823 


71.2 


38.0 


Lenoir 


4,631 


597 


778 


571 


103 


25 


6,705 


81.7 


49.0 


Wayne 


5,798 


636 


890 


1,219 


235 


18 


8,796 


93.8 


52.0 


District Totals 


11,055 


1,295 


1,727 


1,844 


358 


45 


16,324 


87.7 


50.0 




67.7% 


7.9% 


10.6% 


11.3% 


2.2% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 9 




















Franklin 


2,865 


135 


104 


60 


31 


12 


3,207 


46.5 


27.0 


Granville 


2,793 


144 


123 


111 


23 


19 


3,213 


49.9 


23.0 


Person 


2,366 


146 


90 


88 


83 


20 


2,793 


68.3 


33.0 


Vance 


4,369 


249 


227 


207 


45 


41 


5,138 


59.7 


26.0 


Warren 


1,344 


68 


46 


43 


13 





1,514 


41.5 


19.0 


District Totals 


13,737 


742 


590 


509 


195 


92 


15,865 


54.8 


26.0 




86.6% 


4.7% 


3.7% 


3.2% 


1.2% 


0.6% 


100.0% 







275 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) Total Mean Median 



38.0 



27.0 
28.0 
29.0 

28.0 



46.0 



30.0 
35.0 
25.0 

29.0 



47.0 



27.0 



28.0 
35.0 

34.0 



39.0 
32.0 

35.0 





0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Disposed 


Age (Da 


District 10 


















Wake 


25,507 


2,244 


2,750 


3,727 


1,134 


101 


35,463 


81.9 




71.9% 


6.3% 


7.8% 


10.5% 


3.2% 


0.3% 


100.0% 




District 11 


















Harnett 


5,299 


344 


329 


272 


59 


13 


6,316 


52.8 


Johnston 


6,626 


422 


442 


305 


32 


2 


7,829 


49.4 


Lee 


5,681 


313 


351 


240 


28 





6,613 


48.7 


District Totals 


17,606 


1,079 


1,122 


817 


119 


15 


20,758 


50.2 




84.8% 


5.2% 


5.4% 


3.9% 


0.6% 


0.1% 


100.0% 




District 12 


















Cumberland 


18,774 


2,213 


2,845 


2,282 


646 


92 


26,852 


81.6 




69.9% 


8.2% 


10.6% 


8.5% 


2.4% 


0.3% 


100.0% 




District 13 


















Bladen 


2,728 


198 


119 


97 


20 





3,162 


47.0 


Brunswick 


3,882 


279 


275 


98 


12 


2 


4,548 


50.3 


Columbus 


4,213 


273 


192 


92 


5 





4,775 


40.3 


District Totals 


10,823 


750 


586 


287 


37 


2 


12,485 


45.6 




86.7% 


6.0% 


4.7% 


2.3% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 




District 14 


















Durham 


12,460 


1,336 


1,164 


1,595 


746 


260 


17,561 


99.9 




71.0% 


7.6% 


6.6% 


9.1% 


4.2% 


1.5% 


100.0% 




District 15A 


















Alamance 


9,095 


617 


502 


347 


120 


9 


10,690 


50.4 




85.1% 


5.8% 


4.7% 


3.2% 


1.1% 


0.1% 


100.0% 




District 15B 


















Chatham 


2,256 


111 


119 


77 


19 


3 


2,585 


49.2 


Orange 


4,791 


398 


337 


280 


30 


1 


5,837 


56.7 


District Totals 


7,047 


509 


456 


357 


49 


4 


8,422 


54.4 




83.7% 


6.0% 


5.4% 


4.2% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 




District 16A 


















Hoke 


2,162 


140 


179 


135 


11 


1 


2,628 


58.9 


Scotland 


4,516 


272 


229 


241 


52 


2 


5,312 


54.1 


District Totals 


6,678 


412 


408 


376 


63 


3 


7,940 


55.7 




84.1% 


5.2% 


5.1% 


4.7% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 





276 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) Total Mean Median 





0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Disposed 


Age (Days) 


Age (Dai 


District 16B 




















Robeson 


12,505 


888 


966 


485 


78 


3 


14,925 


48.4 


28.0 




83.8% 


5.9% 


6.5% 


3.2% 


0.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 17A 




















Caswell 


1,008 


26 


11 


7 


2 





1,054 


24.8 


15.0 


Rockingham 


6,720 


213 


114 


129 


12 





7,188 


36.9 


25.0 


District Totals 


7,728 


239 


125 


136 


14 





8,242 


35.4 


23.0 




93.8% 


2.9% 


1.5% 


1.7% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 17B 




















Stokes 


2,356 


119 


176 


140 


10 





2,801 


57.8 


41.0 


Surry 


3,911 


384 


380 


154 


10 





4,839 


57.4 


43.0 


District Totals 


6,267 


503 


556 


294 


20 





7,640 


57.6 


42.0 




82.0% 


6.6% 


7.3% 


3.8% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 18 




















Guilford 


25,030 


3,548 


4,443 


5,844 


4,103 


2,095 


45,063 


168.8 


76.0 




55.5% 


7.9% 


9.9% 


13.0% 


9.1% 


4.6% 


100.0% 






District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


7,606 


303 


201 


217 


7 





8,334 


42.4 


29.0 




91.3% 


3.6% 


2.4% 


2.6% 


0.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 19B 




















Montgomery 


2,162 


172 


132 


141 


31 


4 


2,642 


61.8 


39.0 


Randolph 


5,206 


609 


564 


448 


208 


11 


7,046 


79.7 


50.0 


District Totals 


7,368 


781 


696 


589 


239 


15 


9,688 


74.8 


47.0 




76.1% 


8.1% 


7.2% 


6.1% 


2.5% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 19C 




















Rowan 


6,115 


315 


430 


297 


9 


2 


7,168 


51.3 


33.0 




85.3% 


4.4% 


6.0% 


4.1% 


0.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 20 




















Anson 


2,471 


110 


76 


43 


8 


5 


2,713 


41.9 


27.0 


Moore 


5,158 


115 


98 


46 


41 


2 


5,460 


30.5 


17.0 


Richmond 


5,261 


178 


167 


64 


6 


4 


5,680 


35.5 


22.0 


Stanly 


2,963 


117 


67 


18 


3 





3,168 


37.2 


27.0 


Union 


5,979 


236 


155 


141 


33 


1 


6,545 


37.5 


22.0 


District Totals 


21,832 


756 


563 


312 


91 


12 


23,566 


35.9 


22.0 




92.6% 


3.2% 


2.4% 


1.3% 


0.4% 


0.1% 


100.0% 







277 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) Total Mean Median 





0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Disposed 


Age (Days) 


Age (Da; 


District 21 




















Forsyth 


23,526 


1,045 


789 


1,156 


58 





26,574 


43.8 


23.0 




88.5% 


3.9% 


3.0% 


4.4% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 22 




















Alexander 


1,780 


151 


84 


86 


13 





2,114 


55.2 


40.0 


Davidson 


10,335 


865 


601 


188 


16 





12,005 


48.5 


33.0 


Davie 


1,218 


174 


126 


82 


27 


1 


1,628 


68.8 


44.0 


Iredell 


7,744 


755 


612 


444 


24 





9,579 


58.0 


41.0 


District Totals 


21,077 


1,945 


1,423 


800 


80 


1 


25,326 


54.0 


36.0 




83.2% 


7.7% 


5.6% 


3.2% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 23 




















Alleghany 


434 


26 


45 


21 


1 





527 


53.9 


33.0 


Ashe 


1,008 


30 


20 


17 


5 


3 


1,083 


33.7 


16.0 


Wilkes 


3,478 


216 


200 


136 


100 


115 


4,245 


83.9 


27.0 


Yadkin 


929 


50 


64 


29 


7 





1,079 


47.9 


28.0 


District Totals 


5,849 


322 


329 


203 


113 


118 


6,934 


68.2 


24.0 




84.4% 


4.6% 


4.7% 


2.9% 


1.6% 


1.7% 


100.0% 






District 24 




















Avery 


750 


75 


97 


144 


39 


6 


1,111 


100.0 


57.0 


Madison 


493 


58 


114 


110 


25 





800 


99.9 


67.0 


Mitchell 


458 


52 


31 


18 


23 


4 


586 


79.8 


44.0 


Watauga 


1,978 


256 


212 


129 


46 


7 


2,628 


65.9 


35.0 


Yancey 


321 


31 


46 


23 


11 





432 


77.2 


51.0 


District Totals 


4,000 


472 


500 


424 


144 


17 


5,557 


79.9 


46.0 




72.0% 


8.5% 


9.0% 


7.6% 


2.6% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 25 




















Burke 


4,731 


255 


187 


239 


60 





5,472 


50.9 


27.0 


Caldwell 


3,918 


193 


202 


93 


13 


4 


4,423 


46.6 


29.0 


Catawba 


7,640 


471 


344 


552 


10 





9,017 


51.7 


29.0 


District Totals 


16,289 


919 


733 


884 


83 


4 


18,912 


50.3 


28.0 




86.1% 


4.9% 


3.9% 


4.7% 


0.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







District 26 

Mecklenburg 38,129 2,300 2,243 2,289 1,239 480 46,680 71.2 

81.7% 4.9% 4.8% 4.9% 2.7% 1.0% 100.0% 



30.0 



District 27A 
Gaston 9,119 1,765 2,228 3,017 612 62 16,803 119.8 80.0 

54.3% 10.5% 13.3% 18.0% 3.6% 0.4% 100.0% 

278 



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

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) Total Mean Median 





0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Disposed 


Age (Days) 


Age (Da 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


4,665 


279 


201 


229 


49 


2 


5,425 


50.6 


28.0 


Lincoln 


2,850 


152 


84 


92 


11 





3,189 


44.6 


29.0 


District Totals 


7,515 


431 


285 


321 


60 


2 


8,614 


48.4 


28.0 




87.2% 


5.0% 


3.3% 


3.7% 


0.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 28 




















Buncombe 


10,688 


1,314 


1,404 


1,890 


506 


15 


15,817 


91.8 


53.0 




67.6% 


8.3% 


8.9% 


11.9% 


3.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 29 




















Henderson 


4,130 


400 


285 


351 


152 


54 


5,372 


80.7 


36.0 


McDowell 


1,835 


129 


147 


140 


33 


7 


2,291 


69.2 


42.0 


Polk 


539 


54 


56 


29 








678 


55.6 


37.5 


Rutherford 


3,878 


265 


262 


272 


79 


40 


4,796 


66.5 


28.5 


Transylvania 


1,425 


103 


84 


81 


15 


8 


1,716 


58.5 


31.0 


District Totals 


11,807 


951 


834 


873 


279 


109 


14,853 


70.6 


35.0 




79.5% 


6.4% 


5.6% 


5.9% 


1.9% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






District 30 




















Cherokee 


1,058 


79 


59 


36 


12 


7 


1,251 


61.8 


39.0 


Clay 


342 


41 


13 


13 


1 


1 


411 


50.0 


32.0 


Graham 


613 


51 


29 


28 


30 





751 


68.4 


46.0 


Haywood 


2,123 


138 


165 


142 


9 





2,577 


54.6 


30.0 


Jackson 


1,028 


56 


56 


36 


3 


2 


1,181 


49.7 


31.0 


Macon 


848 


33 


25 


35 


7 


3 


951 


47.5 


29.0 


Swain 


442 


28 


14 


21 








505 


48.2 


34.0 


District Totals 


6,454 


426 


361 


311 


62 


13 


7,627 


54.8 


34.0 




84.6% 


5.6% 


4.7% 


4.1% 


0.8% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


486,714 


39,191 


40,509 


40,612 


13,460 


4,163 


624,649 


73.2 


36.0 




77.9% 


6.3% 


6.5% 


6.5% 


2.2% 


0.7% 


100.0% 







279 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Dispositions 





Filed 


Waiver 


Other 


Total Dispositions 


District 1 










Camden 


1,206 


1,027 


218 


1,245 


Chowan 


2,126 


1,790 


373 


2,163 


Currituck 


4,002 


3,424 


617 


4,041 


Dare 


7,815 


6,224 


1,451 


7,675 


Gates 


1,475 


1,112 


335 


1,447 


Pasquotank 


3,150 


2,541 


648 


3,189 


Perquimans 


2,007 


1,732 


459 


2,191 


District Totals 


21,781 


17,850 


4,101 


21,951 


District 2 










Beaufort 


6,910 


4,177 


2,782 


6,959 


Hyde 


1,561 


1,022 


461 


1,483 


Martin 


4,239 


2,635 


1,614 


4,249 


Tyrrell 


2,516 


1,714 


807 


2,521 


Washington 


1,255 


748 


530 


1,278 


District Totals 


16,481 


10,296 


6,194 


16,490 


District 3A 










Pitt 


12,803 


6,436 


5,744 


12,180 


District 3B 










Carteret 


6,185 


3,948 


2,036 


5,984 


Craven 


6,486 


4,024 


2,197 


6,221 


Pamlico 


492 


293 


191 


484 


District Totals 


13,163 


8,265 


4,424 


12,689 


District 4 










Duplin 


6,849 


4,913 


1,720 


6,633 


Jones 


1,401 


850 


488 


1,338 


Onslow 


8,958 


5,934 


3,022 


8,956 


Sampson 


8,126 


5,575 


2,487 


8,062 


District Totals 


25,334 


17,272 


7,717 


24,989 


District 5 










New Hanover 


10,865 


8,032 


2,415 


10,447 


Pender 


4,575 


3,604 


774 


4,378 


District Totals 


15,440 


11,636 


3,189 


14,825 


District 6A 










Halifax 


9,937 


8,082 


2,115 


10,197 



280 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Dispositions 





Filed 


Waiver 


Other 


Total Dispositions 


District 6B 










Bertie 


3,301 


2,403 


700 


3,103 


Hertford 


3,546 


2,542 


711 


3,253 


Northampton 


3,567 


2,559 


863 


3,422 


District Totals 


10,414 


7,504 


2,274 


9,778 


District 7 










Edgecombe 


5,445 


4,470 


1,159 


5,629 


Nash 


7,714 


6,266 


1,594 


7,860 


Wilson 


9,157 


7,085 


1,415 


8,500 


District Totals 


22,316 


17,821 


4,168 


21,989 


District 8 










Greene 


1,437 


836 


574 


1,410 


Lenoir 


8,569 


4,776 


3,581 


8,357 


Wayne 


9,651 


5,294 


3,919 


9,213 


District Totals 


19,657 


10,906 


8,074 


18,980 


District 9 










Franklin 


3,104 


1,896 


1,199 


3,095 


Granville 


6,246 


3,791 


2,403 


6,194 


Person 


2,532 


1,469 


1,020 


2,489 


Vance 


5,072 


3,202 


1,575 


4,777 


Warren 


1,849 


1,172 


524 


1,696 


District Totals 


18,803 


11,530 


6,721 


18,251 


District 10 










Wake 


41,574 


20,391 


20,108 


40,499 


District 11 










Harnett 


4,508 


2,453 


2,040 


4,493 


Johnston 


10,716 


6,704 


3,703 


10,407 


Lee 


6,605 


3,672 


2,575 


6,247 


District Totals 


21,829 


12,829 


8,318 


21,147 


District 12 










Cumberland 


21,780 


13,933 


6,705 


20,638 



281 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Dispositions 



Filed 



District 13 




Bladen 


5,241 


Brunswick 


5,102 


Columbus 


7,146 


District Totals 


17,489 


District 14 




Durham 


14,018 


District 15A 




Alamance 


12,248 


District 15B 




Chatham 


4,911 


Orange 


9,259 


District Totals 


14,170 


District 16A 




Hoke 


2,321 


Scotland 


2,963 


District Totals 


5,284 


District 16B 




Robeson 


9,765 


District 17A 




Caswell 


2,144 


Rockingham 


8,967 


District Totals 


11,111 


District 17B 




Stokes 


4,151 


Surry 


6,830 


District Totals 


10,981 


District 18 




Guilford 


49,079 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 


10,959 



Waiver 

3,195 
2,631 
4,231 

10,057 
8,127 
7,143 



3,097 
5,490 

8,587 



1,455 
1,978 

3,433 



6,123 



1,342 
6,158 

7,500 



2,806 
4,610 

7,416 



24,221 



7,149 



Other 

1,991 
2,551 
2,698 

7,240 
7,138 
4,764 



1,964 
3,449 

5,413 



739 
1,031 

1,770 



3,099 



733 
3,069 

3,802 



1,216 
1,975 

3,191 



22,181 



3,456 



Total Dispositions 

5,186 
5,182 
6,929 

17,297 



15,265 



11,907 



5,061 
8,939 

14,000 



2,194 
3,009 

5,203 



9,222 



2,075 
9,227 

11,302 



4,022 
6,585 

10,607 



46,402 



10,605 



282 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1991 -June 30, 1992 

Dispositions 



Filed 



District 19B 




Montgomery 


2,128 


Randolph 


11,515 


District Totals 


13,643 


District 19C 




Rowan 


9,350 


District 20 




Anson 


2,058 


Moore 


6,955 


Richmond 


2,779 


Stanly 


4,167 


Union 


5,250 


District Totals 


21,209 


District 21 




Forsyth 


27,317 


District 22 




Alexander 


2,422 


Davidson 


11,443 


Davie 


4,005 


Iredell 


11,897 


District Totals 


29,767 


District 23 




Alleghany 


964 


Ashe 


1,562 


Wilkes 


3,999 


Yadkin 


3,612 


District Totals 


10,137 


District 24 




Avery 


1,770 


Madison 


1,592 


Mitchell 


820 


Watauga 


2,735 


Yancey 


1,414 


District Totals 


8,331 



Waiver 

1,355 
6,190 

7,545 
5,188 



1,400 
3,952 
1,765 
2,683 
3,243 

13,043 



14,366 



1,375 
6,555 
2,365 
7,788 

18,083 



596 

995 

2,358 

2,490 

6,439 



1,288 
1,157 

580 
1,906 

996 

5,927 



Other 

757 
5,308 

6,065 
4,138 



585 
3,047 

985 
1,476 
1,909 

8,002 



12,825 



1,072 
5,028 
1,823 
3,976 

11,899 



367 

561 

1,514 

1,104 

3,546 



513 
405 
312 
841 
405 

2,476 



Total Dispositions 

2,112 
11,498 

13,610 



9,326 



1,985 
6,999 
2,750 
4,159 
5,152 

21,045 



27,191 



2,447 
11,583 

4,188 
11,764 

29,982 



963 
1,556 
3,872 
3,594 

9,985 



1,801 
1,562 
892 
2,747 
1,401 

8,403 



2X3 



INFRACTION CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1991 -- June 30, 1992 

Dispositions 





Filed 


Waiver 


Other 


Total Dispositions 


District 25 










Burke 


6,009 


3,172 


2,537 


5,709 


Caldwell 


3,943 


1,951 


1,828 


3,779 


Catawba 


10,961 


6,061 


4,569 


10,630 


District Totals 


20,913 


11,184 


8,934 


20,118 


District 26 










Mecklenburg 


47,513 


25,933 


21,626 


47,559 


District 27A 










Gaston 


23,496 


15,210 


8,569 


23,779 


District 27B 










Cleveland 


8,678 


6,106 


2,560 


8,666 


Lincoln 


3,065 


1,695 


1,297 


2,992 


District Totals 


11,743 


7,801 


3,857 


11,658 


District 28 










Buncombe 


10,763 


8,490 


1,829 


10,319 


District 29 










Henderson 


5,712 


4,289 


1,443 


5,732 


McDowell 


3,880 


2,877 


1,127 


4,004 


Polk 


1,632 


1,264 


360 


1,624 


Rutherford 


4,353 


2,831 


1,036 


3,867 


Transylvania 


1,177 


725 


479 


1,204 


District Totals 


16,754 


11,986 


4,445 


16,431 


District 30 










Cherokee 


2,404 


2,054 


420 


2,474 


Clay 


950 


642 


296 


938 


Graham 


488 


297 


187 


484 


Haywood 


4,678 


3,516 


966 


4,482 


Jackson 


2,009 


1,429 


605 


2,034 


Macon 


3,179 


2,540 


602 


3,142 


Swain 


2,336 


1,635 


606 


2,241 


District Totals 


16,044 


12,113 


3,682 


15,795 


State Totals 


693,396 


427,815 


253,799 


681,614 



2X4 



STATE LIBRARY OF NORTH CAROLINA 



III Ml II III II I I III 1 1 III I III I III 
3 3091 00748 3316 



' & ARCHIVES 
Ji-tll 
37219 



N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts 



1,750 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of 
SI 2, 135.00, or $6.93 per copy.