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.

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

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

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

15

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

0

7

0

2

0

2

0

44

230

224

50

29

148

152

25

3

10

11

2

85

388

396

77

2

0

2

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

o

1

0

1

0

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

0

2

4

184

181

181

184

16

16

0

0

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

0

4

2

5

1

0

2

2

0

2

3A

12

4

1

1

6

0

5

3B

6

0

1

1

4

0

2

4A

9

5

3

1

0

0

2

4B

7

2

3

2

0

0

2

5

17

3

4

1

9

0

6

6A

9

4

3

2

0

0

5

6B

5

3

1

0

1

0

2

7A

4

1

0

0

3

0

2

7B-C

8

3

I

0

4

0

1

8A

2

0

1

0

1

0

0

8B

2

1

0

0

1

0

0

SUBTOTAL

94

29

19

12

34

0

33

II

9

9

3

2

0

4

0

4

10

43

4

2

2

19

16

22

11

12

2

5

0

5

0

5

12

X

I

4

1

2

0

5

13

s

2

4

1

1

0

4

14

15

2

1

4

7

1

6

15A

10

3

5

1

1

0

5

15B

9

0

3

0

5

1

4

16A

5

2

1

0

2

0

3

16B

18

6

6

3

3

0

11

SUBTOTAL

137

25

33

12

49

18

69

III

17A

6

4

1

0

1

0

2

17B

5

2

0

2

1

0

2

18

23

2

6

4

11

0

12

19A

4

1

0

0

3

0

1

19B

2

0

0

0

2

0

1

19C

5

1

1

1

2

0

1

20A

6

2

1

0

3

0

3

20B

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

21

30

3

5

3

18

1

12

22

10

4

0

0

6

0

1

23

8

2

1

0

5

0

3

SUBTOTAL

99

21

15

10

52

1

38

IV

24

7

1

0

1

5

0

5

25A

5

1

0

1

3

0

4

25B

6

I

2

2

1

0

2

26

31

7

6

5

13

0

14

27A

3

2

0

0

1

0

1

27B

5

1

2

1

1

0

0

28

13

1

3

1

8

0

4

29

9

1

7

1

0

0

5

30A

8

2

1

1

4

0

5

30 B

5

0

0

2

3

0

1

SUBTOTAL

92

17

21

15

39

0

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
0

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

0

2

0

2

58

156

10

224

11

133

8

152

0

11

0

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

0

1

0

0

3

Juvenile

1

0

0

1

0

2

Other civil

15

6

x

29

0

58

Criminal (death sentence)

3

0

0

0

29

32

Criminal (life sentence)

30

0

0

2

5

37

Other criminal

5

0

1

10

0

16

Administrative agency decision

1

0

0

0

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

0
0

II

0
0
0

0
0

1

0
0

2

0
0
0

0
0

14

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

1

0
3

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

1

0
0
0

1

0
4

Administrative agency decision

6

0

1

0

0

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

0
0
5
0
0
0
0

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

0

Totals

356

352

Motions

Allowed

Denied

Remanded

979

378

0

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)

0

as

>
O

>>

©

O
o

Vi

U

0)

43

>

OJ

C

g

D

a

*_-

i)

5

0

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 Arbitration31

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
0

5
I
0

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

0
0

25
139

20
104

0

32

0

17

0

7

0

8

District Totals

164

0

164

124

32

17

7

8

District 19B

Montgomery
Randolph

8

62

0

0

8

62

7
50

4
15

0

2

1
3

3

10

District Totals

70

0

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

0
0

3
2

District Totals

157

6

District 30A

Cherokee

Clay

Graham

Macon

Swain

20
18

5

37
22

0
0
0
0
0

District Totals

102

0

District 30B

Haywood
Jackson

53

53

0

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

0
4
0
6
5

15

12
3

15

421
(26% of
cases
arbitrated)

Trials

2
0
0
0
0

Dismissal/
Other

16

117

Pending

6/30/92

6

1

0
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

Removed1 Settled2 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
0

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 0

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 $

0

$ 776,508

0

989

0

195,260

0

452

0

77,033

0

2,899

0

198,332

0

2,092

0

116,654

0

1,415

0

102,997

0

12,895

0

437,164

0

567

0

193,593

209

3,989

0

365,565

712

18,890

0

410,569

0

27,856

0

1,286,406

0

15,407

0

555,624

35

60,659

0

876,096

0

14,565

0

508,942

0

0

0

62,838

0

21,194

0

377,372

9

330

45

155,841

45,799

31,653

0

889,061

11,023

1,322

30

322,123

0

1,476

0

178,032

0

3,336

0

113,327

0

0

0

60,339

0

11,161

0

573,358

2,710

5,392

0

387,286

3,290

24,440

0

494,562

0

78,625

0

1,595,512

0

0

0

154,442

0

30,519

0

498,700

18,413

14,514

0

864,520

0

319

0

217,465

0

805

135

366,654

0

77,067

0

1,515,770

38,684

29 229

623

450,087

7,120

167,978

0

1,946,075

0

473

0

337,269

0

66,270

0

931,047

0

0

0

80,622

0

25

0

50,018

18

9,754

30

411,016

0

0

0

88,034

0

222,963

0

2,379,848

3,175

12,577

20

510,452

11,555

6,793

0

488,038

1,074

4,645

0

338,474

25

3,110

0

508,264

0

3,114

0

231,123

0

2,707

0

276,703

0

0

0

73,971

16,137

22,851

110

778,417

0

0

0

176,280

21,014

8,148

0

702,958

0

280

0

55,007

0

21,252

0

433,276

0

23,607

0

578,712

0

3,920

0

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

$ 0

$ 1,068

$ 0

$ 177,149

Madison

13,775

13,656

1,312

56,196

0

698

0

85

637

Martin

41,761

35,757

9,045

153,225

0

2,154

0

241

942

McDowell

37,341

30,625

55

172,146

0

3,225

0

243

392

Mecklenburg

702,263

180,537

0

1,843,559

0

441,164

0

3,167

523

Mitchell

10,230

7,012

1,924

39,056

0

1,960

0

60

182

Montgomery

32,498

32,625

4,214

171,668

0

2 229

0

243

234

Moore

65,423

51,901

137

431,672

3,545

15,263

0

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

0

884

177

Northampton

24,612

24,788

3,185

152,177

685

2,080

0

207

527

Onslow

143,544

83,606

25,795

475,514

0

65,720

0

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

0

0

0

52

733

Pasquotank

39,683

23,798

4,481

220,591

0

16,054

0

304

607

Pender

35,209

31,566

4,069

176,208

0

2,091

0

249

143

Perquimans

16,051

13,634

439

65,574

0

1,557

0

97

255

Person

37,524

32,233

5,151

201,740

60

6,755

0

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

0

95

0

91

492

Randolph

95,503

78,496

4,416

576,109

5,173

16,894

0

776

591

Richmond

48,440

31,247

3,171

271,339

0

4,694

0

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

0

788

946

Rowan

102,255

70,345

18,022

554,826

0

40,010

0

785

458

Rutherford

61,429

40,986

5,008

300,776

0

9,683

0

417

882

Sampson

73,497

69,245

7,737

321,007

0

4,824

0

476

310

Scotland

48,228

37,725

8,834

288,583

0

10,063

0

393

433

Stanly

51,857

23,867

5,635

330,514

0

13,558

0

425

431

Stokes

34,552

26,695

244

230,985

0

395

0

292

871

Surry

67,121

63,945

3,059

361,661

2,630

11,973

0

510

389

Swain

14,454

12,800

5,375

92,411

0

650

0

125

690

Transylvania

19,433

23,187

6,006

98,977

0

1,751

0

149

354

Tyrrell

16,620

15,318

943

59,701

0

0

0

92

582

Union

79,897

66,885

10,176

515,547

0

16,455

0

688

960

Vance

63,702

37,240

6,645

261,020

0

7,171

0

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

0

376

0

165

994

Washington

16,634

12,530

2,138

62,234

0

3,198

0

96

734

Watauga

35,094

25,704

3,117

119,319

0

5,709

0

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

0

2,112

0

450

880

Wilson

99,905

94,373

8,021

331,857

0

20,196

0

554

352

Yadkin

31,585

25,808

4,853

176,458

0

3,264

0

241

968

Yancey

11,709

10,523

71

43,994

0

313

0

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 (67.9rf) 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

0

4

5

11

29

16

30

67

142

1,881

0

6

24

63

4

II

S3

119

4

16

0

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

0

2
0
6

l

4
4

17

Expenditures

0

100

0

2,073

400

325

275

3,173

0

300

0

0

50

350

1.2X0

1,280

175

1,150

0

1,325

250
100
_0

350

1,381
1,381

1,365
0

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

0

0

District Totals

1,062

314,283

0

0

District 7B-C

Edgecombe
Wilson

991
1,005

280,394

282,397

0
0

0
0

District Totals

1,996

562,791

0

0

District 8 A

Greene
Lenoir

139
986

77,379
298,569

0
0

0
0

District Totals

1,125

375,948

0

0

District 8B

Wayne

1,320

412,331

0

0

District Totals

1,320

412,331

0

0

District 9

Franklin

Granville

Person

Vance

Warren

540
579
516
865
213

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

0

0
6

2
0

0

0

1,400

550

0

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
0

2

520

0

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
0

350

650

0

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

0
4,871

District Totals

579

157,217

5

4,871

District I6A

Hoke
Scotland

54
162

69,016

41,669

o
2

0
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

0

19

2,405
0

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

0

0

District Totals

1,111

280,443

0

0

District 19 B

Montgomery
Randolph

307
1,091

80,599

320,178

o
6

0

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

0

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

0

7
0

1

0

1,075

0

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
0

100

125

525

0

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

0
0

3
3

3

0

0

1,840

350

400

District Totals

930

259,398

9

2,590

District 25 A

Burke
Caldwell

864
958

208,733
189,052

0
0

0
0

District Totals

1,822

397,785

0

0

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

0

500
0

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
0
0

1,275
150

1,150
0
0

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

0
0
3
0

210
0

0

735

0

District Totals

764

237,639

4

945

District JOB

Haywood
Jackson

432
194

100,369
52,076

1
0

130
0

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

0

Chowan

0

Currituck

0

Dare

4

Gates

2

Pasquotank

0

Perquimans

2

District Totals

8

2.3%

District 2

Beaufort

4

Hyde

0

Martin

2

Tyrrell

0

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

0

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

0
0

9
26
2
4
3

44
12.4%

19
0

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

0

3
5

17
0
3
0

28
7.9%

7
2

1
0
7

17
9.7%

27

9

16

0

25
6.2%

3
2
7

12
6.3%

12
4.6%

Total

Dther

Disposed

0

5

0

23

16

75

12

147

3

17

8

68

2

19

41

354

11.6%

100.0%

4

78

3

18

0

41

0

4

0

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

0

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

0
1

1

6

7

10

22
23
33

15
3
2

4
3
3

2
0
0

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

0

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

0

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

0

70

3

0

64

4

2

57

4

2

88

2

0

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

0

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

0

1

Trial by

Judge

5
3

Voluntary
Dismissal

10
50

Judge's Final
Order or
Judgment

Without Trial

1
7

Clerk

1
4

Other

0

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

0
6

5
44

15
95

1
5

0

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

0
10

0
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

0

11

17
36

28
93

0

18

7
10

0
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

0

11

1

13
5.3%

1
1
1
9
1

13
5.8%

Total

ther

Disposed

0

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

0

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
0
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
0
0
5
0

1
0
1
10
0

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

0.0%

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

0.0%

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

0.0%

35

205.3

169.0

Surry

107

96.4%

4

3.6%

0

0.0%

111

153.7

131.0

District Totals

136

93.2%

10

6.8%

0

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

0.0%

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

0.0%

1

2.6%

0

0.0%

5

11.1%

0

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

0.0%

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

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

0.0%

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

0.0%

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

0.0%

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

0.0%

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

0.0%

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

0

0

20

3

Chowan

19

55

6

21

0

0

4

105

61

Currituck

38

62

4

83

6

0

0

193

89

Dare

93

56

9

164

34

0

4

360

0

Gates

17

15

8

10

7

0

1

58

4

Pasquotank

162

91

12

107

29

0

5

406

226

Perquimans

32

11

0

41

3

0

1

88

34

District Totals

365

294

40

436

80

0

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

0

11

525

400

Hyde

43

3

1

1

1

0

1

50

39

Martin

260

30

13

63

8

0

8

382

252

Tyrrell

30

5

2

5

0

0

4

46

24

Washington

165

36

14

32

4

0

1

252

159

District Totals

820

130

54

196

30

0

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

0

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

0

20

581

383

Craven

678

175

12

160

27

0

16

1,068

813

Pamlico

49

44

3

22

5

0

3

126

87

District Totals

1,043

287

23

339

44

0

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

0

4

651

328

Jones

33

4

0

20

5

0

1

63

| 43

Sampson

316

97

19

166

5

0

7

610

299

District Totals

425

432

38

399

18

0

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

0

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

0

31

2,290

1,251

Pender

105

40

9

111

2

0

8

275

111

District Totals

1,387

314

40

717

68

0

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

0

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

0

2

269

183

Hertford

233

61

12

146

1

0

11

464

253

Northampton

125

14

10

43

3

0

8

203

162

District Totals

545

88

29

246

7

0

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

0

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

0

0

16

963

284

Wilson

373

83

18

448

15

0

18

955

542

District Totals

633

215

45

976

15

0

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

0

4

150

86

Lenoir

337

197

30

162

30

0

20

776

540

District Totals

395

229

37

207

34

0

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

0

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

0

5

443

374

Granville

274

85

4

180

12

0

1

556

350

Person

178

123

7

231

7

0

4

550

301

Vance

533

55

3

205

17

0

8

821

0

Warren

149

27

2

104

2

0

4

288

171

District Totals

1,435

325

20

793

63

0

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

0

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

0

0

9

572

261

Johnston

434

117

21

147

7

0

31

757

518

Lee

316

95

18

149

9

0

4

591

396

District Totals

1,068

298

49

445

16

0

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

0

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

0

5

387

215

Brunswick

142

83

22

243

11

0

2

503

285

Columbus

7K

59

24

81

4

0

15

261

131

District Totals

467

156

64

416

26

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

22

393

299

Orange

448

67

17

130

43

0

16

721

511

District Totals

672

89

27

239

49

0

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

0

5

354

284

Scotland

515

48

10

78

3

0

8

662

551

District Totals

769

94

18

109

13

0

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

0

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

0

10

166

101

Rockingham

734

212

56

422

40

0

9

1,473

877

District Totals

818

240

59

461

42

0

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

0

1

508

401

Surry

503

68

2

111

9

0

12

705

511

District Totals

856

116

17

200

11

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

0

22

0

22

0

2.1%

0.0%

25

0

2.0%

0.0%

10

0

2

0

0

0

12

0

0.5%

0.0%

2

0

6

0

8

0

0.5%

0.0%

24

0

0.9%

0.0%

1

0

17

0

0

0

17

0

35

0

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

0

7

28

15

Ashe

38

7

6

14

0

0

5

70

41

Wilkes

325

19

26

43

7

0

23

443

61

Yadkin

62

32

11

6

3

0

1

115

73

District Totals

438

61

45

65

11

0

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

0

37

7

0

7

72

0

Madison

26

13

9

38

5

0

1

92

31

Mitchell

32

8

2

35

14

0

2

93

47

Watauga

75

31

6

97

0

0

4

213

101

Yancey

11

3

2

14

0

0

0

30

12

District Totals

158

62

19

221

26

0

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

0

11

571

148

Caldwell

343

84

20

437

45

0

10

939

585

District Totals

552

129

25

667

116

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

29

808

114

Lincoln

348

31

37

186

6

0

7

615

339

District Totals

787

107

86

394

13

0

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

0

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

0

30

747

476

McDowell

149

11

16

90

1

0

3

270

128

Polk

51

2

7

9

0

0

1

70

42

Rutherford

319

54

13

141

46

0

15

588

237

Transylvania

S4

19

4

81

25

0

6

219

61

District Totals

978

178

48

504

131

0

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

0

8

204

1

Clay

23

5

5

27

7

0

29

96

0

Graham

30

3

1

87

2

0

1

124

6

Macon

60

11

5

37

5

0

9

127

14

Swain

56

6

7

34

2

0

23

128

69

District Totals

232

46

21

254

56

0

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

0

4

307

192

Jackson

7 3

24

8

45

0

0

8

158

125

District Totals

205

70

30

139

9

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

0

33

6

Chowan

26

17

2

30

2

0

19

96

21

Currituck

32

16

2

30

27

0

15

122

30

Dare

74

6-1

23

94

32

0

92

379

0

Gates

19

13

0

14

2

0

15

63

2

Pasquotank

82

21

4

52

35

0

87

281

48

Perquimans

37

5

2

25

1

0

46

116

11

District Totals

280

148

35

250

103

0

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

0

217

492

127

Hyde

16

0

0

2

1

0

16

35

7

Martin

59

8

2

29

16

0

100

214

31

Tyrrell

28

2

2

1

2

0

34

69

9

Washington

37

3

9

18

10

0

68

145

28

District Totals

284

24

25

134

53

0

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

0

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

0

153

320

56

Craven

181

8

14

84

15

0

118

420

92

Pamlico

7

0

0

11

2

0

12

32

7

District Totals

265

9

19

154

42

0

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

0

18

102

19

Jones

11

0

0

13

0

0

6

30

10

Sampson

73

5

10

41

1

0

27

157

36

District Totals

109

17

11

99

2

0

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 Dismissal 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

0

4.9%

0.0%

69

0

1

0

70

0

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

0

0

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

0

4.3%

0.0%

0

0

3

0

0

0

3

0

0.9%

0.0%

22

0

6.1%

0.0%

3

0

6

0

9

0

1.7%

0.0%

3

0

49

0

52

0

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 0 489 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

0

114

341

169

Granville

120

23

7

122

8

0

93

373

132

Person

152

10

9

144

9

0

85

409

165

Vance

309

24

2

153

13

0

65

566

2

Warren

57

S

4

46

5

0

49

169

56

District Totals

742

105

26

531

48

0

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

0

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

0

3

68

3

0

75

185

26

Johnston

158

18

8

75

8

0

95

362

116

Lee

129

3

13

82

11

0

120

358

131

District Totals

323

21

24

225

22

0

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

0

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

0

66

185

55

Brunswick

46

5

11

31

17

0

55

165

25

Columbus

43

5

7

32

1

0

74

162

36

District Totals

151

11

28

103

24

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

Orange

12

4

5

25

9

0

District Totals

52

11

8

37

17

0

21.6%

4.6%

3.3%

15.4%

7.1%

0.0%

District 16A

Hoke

34

0

12

15

8

0

Scotland

85

3

4

31

4

0

District Totals

119

3

16

46

12

0

42.3%

1.1%

5.7%

16.4%

4.3%

0.0%

District 16B

Robeson

235

1

12

2^,

86

0

33.1%

0.1%

1.7%

3.2%

12.1%

0.0%

District 17A

Caswell

102

9

3

37

0

0

Rockingham

376

48

16

195

35

0

District Totals

478

57

19

232

35

0

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

0

11

0

22

0

2.4%

0.0%

75

0

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 0 396 890 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

0

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

0

22

89

12

63

102

22

198

6.2%

1.3%

12.1%

2

0

30

0

32

0

4.6%

0.0%

35

0

9.3%

0.0%

4

0

1

0

1

0

6

0

0.4%

0.0%

16

0

1

0

17

0

1.3%

0.0%

18

0

1.3%

0.0%

2

0

17

0

0

0

28

0

47

0

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

:

0

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

0

5

15

Mitchell

5

1

2

11)

Watauga

23

4

24

33

Yancey

5

1

0

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 Dismissal Speedy

With Trial

Leave Dismissals

2

0

0

0

19

0

2

0

23

0

3.8%

0.0%

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0.7%

0.0%

34

0

45

0

79

0

4.8%

0.0%

32

0

3.4%

0.0%

30

0

1.8%

0.0%

Total
Total Negotiated
Other Dispositions Pleas

44 0

6.5% 0.0%

36

44

0

35

65

14

225

375

10

71

117

15

367

601

39

61.1%

100.0%

6.5%

11

62

0

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%

0

0

25

0

25

0

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

0

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

0

137

339

75

McDowell

84

3

8

49

0

0

98

242

61

Polk

9

0

0

24

0

0

24

57

4

Rutherford

272

2S

8

208

72

0

236

824

146

Transylvania

30

1

6

11

4

0

25

77

16

District Totals

479

36

33

366

105

0

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

0

43

177

1

Clay

9

2

0

4

2

0

10

27

0

Graham

22

1

0

24

5

0

22

74

8

Macon

23

3

4

18

5

0

33

86

3

Swain

6

0

5

23

8

0

16

58

21

District Totals

133

8

15

120

22

0

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

0

91

281

109

Jackson

42

2

5

18

0

0

47

114

48

District Totals

122

19

25

84

7

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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
0.0%

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

0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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
0.0%

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

0

4

2

0

0

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

0

121

186.1

140.0

Gates

Fel

20

4

35

23

1

0

83

146.6

124.0

Mis

7

5

6

2

0

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

0

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

0

225

176.6

116.0

Mis

49

21

21

12

2

0

105

112.9

96.0

Hyde

Fel

12

9

6

5

1

0

33

131.2

95.0

Mis

1

5

5

4

0

0

15

157.3

133.0

Martin

Fel

67

19

10

21

0

1

118

105.8

76.0

Mis

}2

10

4

11

2

0

59

119.0

78.0

Tyrrell

Fel

13

0

0

0

0

0

13

16.1

5.0

Mis

19

0

0

0

l

0

20

61.3

63.0

Washington

Fel

46

1

11

1

1

0

60

60.6

21.5

Mis

25

1

8

0

0

0

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

0

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

0

156

180.0

146.0

Mis

8

12

8

9

0

0

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

0

8

2

0

0

80

46.2

21.0

Mis

14

1

3

3

0

0

21

93.7

55.0

Jones

Fel

162

6

6

10

0

0

184

19.8

0.0

Mis

11

0

0

1

0

0

12

57.3

25.5

Sampson

Fel

41

3

3

6

1

0

54

94.7

77.0

Mis

10

2

4

1

2

0

19

128.8

77.0

District Total:

5 Fel

273

9

17

18

1

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

0

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

0

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

0

61

193.1

159.0

Mis

15

6

4

3

8

0

36

180.0

103.0

Lenoir

Fel

99

0

39

15

2

0

155

95.4

78.0

Mis

131

26

14

17

1

0

189

71.2

32.0

District Total

sFel

113

4

61

32

6

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

199

63.8

55.0

Mis

32

10

5

5

1

0

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

0

297

249.8

257.0

Mis

32

9

6

16

0

0

63

111.6

90.0

Brunswick

Fel

122

43

21

14

11

3

214

123.4

70.0

Mis

34

7

6

3

0

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

0

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

0

150

124.9

104.0

Mis

19

2

3

4

1

0

29

110.6

64.0

Orange

Fel

172

39

40

72

15

2

340

126.6

78.0

-

Mis

17

4

4

3

3

0

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

0

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

0

88

135.7

81.0

Scotland

Fel

128

43

21

36

39

3

270

175.1

104.0

Mis

32

19

9

6

3

0

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

0

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

0

0

51

60.2

43.0

Mis

24

7

6

2

0

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

192

143.9

84.0

Mis

49

11

16

18

5

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

86

154.7

105.0

Mis

76

13

22

16

2

0

129

109.6

90.0

Davidson

Fel

183

59

89

99

7

1

438

125.7

91.0

Mis

75

23

28

9

4

0

139

103.7

83.0

Davie

Fel

16

15

6

12

3

0

52

137.2

119.0

Mis

24

4

5

2

0

0

35

72.7

53.0

Iredell

Fel

209

52

52

88

19

2

422

127.4

91.0

Mis

113

59

52

79

9

0

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

0

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

0

29

176.9

134.0

Ashe

Fel

14

5

14

33

5

0

71

204.3

207.0

Mis

20

10

5

22

1

0

58

158.4

109.0

Wilkes

Fel

88

8

9

27

10

6

148

177.9

55.0

Mis

63

6

13

12

1

0

95

86.1

54.0

Yadkin

Fel

31

7

10

18

2

0

68

148.5

116.0

Mis

23

3

6

14

9

0

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

0

237

134.7

89.0

50.2%

8.4%

11.8%

23.6%

5.9%

0.0%

100.0%

District 24

Avery

Fel

26

0

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

0

2

2

0

18

136.8

83.5

Mitchell

Fel

10

5

4

11

11

2

43

283.6

271.0

Mis

9

5

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

33

74.5

46.0

Clay

Fel

5

2

7

3

0

0

17

138.1

126.0

Mis

11

1

5

1

0

0

18

95.7

77.0

Graham

Fel

4

2

5

118

2

0

131

212.6

208.0

Mis

11

0

9

6

0

0

26

130.0

132.0

Macon

Fel

21

0

27

28

2

0

78

167.6

148.0

Mis

9

3

9

2

1

0

24

121.4

120.5

Swain

Fel

5

5

1

6

0

0

17

127.4

105.0

Mis

5

0

2

3

0

0

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

0

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

0

136

123.0

134.0

Mis

21

6

8

2

0

1

38

104.2

73.0

Jackson

Fel

6

0

12

26

4

0

48

227.7

186.0

Mis

15

2

10

13

0

0

40

135.6

140.0

District Total

sFel

71

1

60

47

5

0

184

150.3

146.5

38.6%

0.5%

32.6%

25.5%

2.7%

0.0%

100.0%

Mis

36

8

18

15

0

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 0 233 106.6 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 0 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 0 242 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 0 725 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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

20

182.2

97.5

Mis

18

1

3

6

2

3

33

188.4

73.0

Chowan

Fel

41

14

17

28

5

0

105

148.4

119.0

Mis

40

8

19

19

9

1

96

154.9

120.5

Currituck

Fel

72

11

56

39

15

0

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

0

525

139.7

103.0

Mis

221

66

90

106

9

0

492

119.4

102.5

Hyde

Fel

21

5

13

9

2

0

50

132.9

111.0

Mis

18

5

5

7

0

0

35

103.4

71.0

Martin

Fel

203

78

47

44

10

0

382

111.4

85.0

Mis

95

38

34

36

11

0

214

129.1

97.0

Tyrrell

Fel

19

6

11

10

0

0

46

121.1

117.5

Mis

30

14

9

14

2

0

69

117.9

98.0

Washington

Fel

106

10

41

69

26

0

252

158.9

146.5

Mis

63

5

34

28

15

0

145

152.4

125.0

District Totals Fel

593

163

186

239

74

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

126

87.8

89.5

Mis

18

2

1

8

3

0

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

0

651

60.5

35.0

Mis

77

5

9

10

1

0

102

73.3

43.0

Jones

Fel

52

4

1

5

0

1

63

56.9

23.0

Mis

23

4

0

3

0

0

30

56.6

23.0

Sampson

Fel

455

41

60

53

0

1

610

75.2

49.0

Mis

122

17

7

11

0

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

269

46.8

31.0

Mis

51

5

13

7

4

0

80

101.7

47.5

Hertford

Fel

274

81

51

45

13

0

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

0

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

0

150

123.9

86.5

Mis

66

8

10

13

4

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

166

105.9

89.0

Mis

150

37

31

27

2

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

311

92.0

70.0

Mis

188

31

34

14

3

0

270

82.0

61.5

Moore

Fel

623

83

171

166

41

0

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

0

940

88.4

70.0

Mis

338

91

63

67

8

0

567

93.9

75.0

District Totals Fel

1,438

232

332

278

55

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

100

113.5

79.5

Mis

84

30

24

14

0

0

152

89.4

84.0

Iredell

Fel

325

239

199

237

81

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

11

23

0

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

0

92

179.0

154.0

Mis

17

5

8

3

0

0

33

97.7

81.0

Mitchell

Fel

33

8

6

29

16

1

93

201.1

174.0

Mis

5

0

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

0

7

8

8

0

30

233.1

194.0

Mis

2

0

1

7

3

0

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

0

70

303.4

349.0

Mis

25

8

10

9

5

0

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

0

0

96

136.3

145.0

Mis

14

0

7

5

1

0

27

131.8

73.0

Graham

Fel

8

20

6

83

7

0

124

224.7

188.0

Mis

32

4

11

23

2

2

74

164.6

124.0

Macon

Fel

38

28

24

16

21

0

127

190.6

115.0

Mis

34

15

15

19

3

0

86

130.6

108.0

Swain

Fel

49

38

18

21

2

0

128

122.7

113.0

Mis

28

3

4

14

9

0

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

0

281

67.5

41.0

Jackson

Fel

108

7

18

11

3

11

158

166.6

62.0

Mis

68

15

20

11

0

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

1

4

2

6

4

17

Dom

0

5

7

26

1

1

40

Chowan

Gen

1

15

17

1

36

3

73

Dom

0

62

10

84

1

10

167

Currituck

Gen

0

7

25

16

24

45

117

Dom

0

80

25

23

0

0

128

Dare

Gen

1

10

71

31

111

28

252

Dom

0

131

2}

85

1

6

246

Gates

Gen

0

1

7

28

0

6

42

Dom

1

8

2

59

0

5

75

Pasquotank

Gen

0

14

45

11

83

21

174

Dom

1

232

31

134

1

1

400

Perquimans

Gen

0

2

8

2

17

3

32

Dom

0

62

9

38

0

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

0

2

3

1

5

1

12

Dom

1

15

0

8

0

0

24

Martin

Gen

0

3

20

1

29

0

53

V

Dom

0

124

11

135

1

2

273

Tyrrell

Gen

0

1

9

5

8

2

25

Dom

0

1

2

46

0

2

51

Washington

Gen

0

14

29

3

45

13

104

Dom

0

71

9

136

0

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

0

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

0

Dom

0

63

2

25

0

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

0

Jones

Gen

2

5

16

3

10

Dom

0

71

12

50

0

Onslow

Gen

2

189

364

32

193

Dom

0

1,575

137

142

4

Sampson

Gen

1

15

134

19

112

Dom

0

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

0

1,086

143

574

3

Pender

Gen

1

43

59

22

54

Dom

0

192

22

90

1

District Totals

Gen

17

241

465

332

700

0.9%

12.5%

24.0%

17.2%

36.2%

Dom

0

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

0

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

0

2

338

Hertford

Gen

0

36

23

47

4

4

114

Dom

0

330

31

5

0

10

376

Northampton

Gen

0

18

24

14

24

2

82

Dom

0

126

22

238

0

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

0

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

0

396

61

415

0

19

891

Nash

Gen

2

71

159

62

271

7

572

Dom

0

707

48

444

3

12

1,214

Wilson

Gen

5

56

135

79

202

15

492

Dom

0

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

0

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

0

13

22

1

22

3

61

Dom

0

60

6

73

1

5

145

Lenoir

Gen

7

40

122

65

149

21

404

Dom

1

466

42

263

0

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

0

10

209

22

134

11

386

Dom

2

128

43

219

6

34

432

Granville

Gen

4

17

43

18

73

15

170

Dom

0

145

32

221

1

40

439

Person

Gen

1

5

47

19

80

10

162

Dom

0

195

20

87

1

12

315

Vance

Gen

1

42

72

8

127

24

274

Dom

0

281

30

263

2

49

625

Warren

Gen

1

11

13

5

26

6

62

Dom

0

57

8

99

0

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

0

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

0

405

76

804

0

39

1,324

Lee

Gen

5

78

126

26

199

14

448

Dom

0

371

70

176

0

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

0

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

0

50

85

21

159

4

319

Dom

0

148

25

131

1

7

312

Brunswick

Gen

1

57

130

35

120

46

389

Dom

0

330

90

148

2

49

619

Columbus

Gen

12

61

151

51

108

21

404

Dom

0

363

84

302

0

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

0

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

0

1,195

347

1,380

0

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

0

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

0

148

16

224

44

55

487

Orange

Gen

1

174

207

11

237

29

659

Dom

0

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

0

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

0

20

37

0

41

0

98

Dom

0

104

38

155

1

3

301

Scotland

Gen

0

33

76

16

116

26

267

Dom

0

196

69

311

0

18

594

District Totals

Gen

0

53

113

16

157

26

365

0.0%

14.5%

31.0%

4.4%

43.0%

7.1%

100.0%

Dom

0

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
0.0%

0
0
4
0

4
0.8%

0
0.0%

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

0

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

0

12

52

3

89

0

156

Dom

0

269

}2

0

1

0

302

Randolph

Gen

4

52

103

45

263

9

476

Dom

0

567

60

237

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

347

34

203

1

10

595

Richmond

Gen

3

20

43

20

130

3

219

Dom

0

312

17

260

8

32

629

Stanly

Gen

0

31

83

4

224

3

345

Dom

0

291

22

250

1

3

567

Union

Gen

8

147

121

11

173

2

462

*■

Dom

1

647

42

193

0

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

0

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

0

62

13

42

0

7

124

Ashe

Gen

1

14

17

17

42

2

93

Dom

0

103

14

70

0

0

187

Wilkes

Gen

0

144

145

9

821

5

1,124

Dom

0

535

42

112

1

8

698

Yadkin

Gen

1

9

63

7

80

1

161

Dom

0

147

15

97

0

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

0

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

0

12

22

4

32

21

91

Dom

0

85

11

45

0

12

153

Madison

Gen

1

4

10

6

24

3

48

Dom

0

84

22

64

0

9

179

Mitchell

Gen

0

6

19

5

45

9

84

Dom

0

110

21

34

0

7

172

Watauga

Gen

0

23

140

62

110

26

361

Dom

1

188

30

65

0

16

300

Yancey

Gen

0

8

21

6

22

2

59

Dom

0

74

10

47

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

1,098

106

358

0

340

1,902

Lincoln

Gen

4

32

60

44

103

9

252

Dom

0

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

0

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

0

63

789

McDowell

Gen

3

6

33

15

92

9

158

Dom

0

245

29

122

2

24

422

Polk

Gen

0

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

0

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

0

25

21

12

43

4

105

Dom

1

112

15

64

0

21

213

Clay

Gen

0

3

14

11

22

2

52

Dom

0

15

4

37

1

0

57

Graham

Gen

0

7

10

2

12

2

33

Dom

1

59

10

14

0

0

84

Haywood

Gen

3

66

80

24

132

9

314

Dom

0

354

57

161

0

10

582

Jackson

Gen

2

4

45

22

64

19

156

Dom

0

49

46

165

2

22

284

Macon

Gen

2

10

51

17

36

10

126

Dom

1

130

21

78

0

13

243

Swain

Gen

1

3

7

12

16

3

42

Dom

0

75

9

51

0

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

0.0%

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

0.0%

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

0.0%

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%
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

0

47

24

22

0

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

0.0%

465

105.4

71.0

Lincoln

245

97.2%

7

2.8%

0

0.0%

252

97.6

68.0

District Totals

691

96.4%

26

3.6%

0

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

0.0%

105

93.7

58.0

Clay

47

90.4%

5

9.6%

0

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

0

:

108

o

0

12
30
46
17
106
6

3

13
53

46

19

214
6

2

3
3
2
0
11
5

3

1

2

11

9

0

3

0

19

24

7

6

8

77

39

12

5

5

70

64

0

0

1

21

11

15

9

11

261

66

1

0

2

14

15

District Totals

137

217

354

26

38

24

29

473

228

District 2

Beaufort

Hyde

Martin

Tyrrell

Washington

73

4
21

0
19

90
0

28
2

42

163
4

49

2

61

20

2

5

2

10

5

2

1

2

2

3

199

81

0

14

5

2

75

47

0

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

0

18

48

0

16

17

0

27

12

15

238

93

48

13

14

375

102

3

1

0

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

0

16

8

119

19

1

3

55

0

4
0

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

0 498 440 938 0 96 96 16 104 11 32 1,197 383

0 11 32 43 0 0 0 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

0

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

0

63
6

0
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

0
1

36

37

6

3

52

61

2

2

51

55

3

65

121

189

0

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

0

35

82
61

><2
19

53
136

89
115

19

6
0
5
2

10

10

1

8

21

0

16

1

13

23
10

5

5

2

13

5

18

4

5

4

19

11

11

3

5

0

1

97

81

5

156

65

5

139

61

3

168

105

0

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

0 37 61

0 32 101

2 72 222

65

0

1

1

14

14

6

1

101

74

98

1

5

6

25

33

9

15

186

117

33

0

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

0

0

370

84

25

487

146

District 16B

Robeson

0

289

404

693

2

101

103

33

132

47

12

1,020

280

District 17A

Caswell

0

6

17

23

0

3

3

1

7

4

0

38

23

Rockingham

f)

86

168

254

3

16

19

5

24

5

9

316

93

District Totals

0

92

185

277

3

19

22

6

31

9

9

354

116

District 17B

Stokes

0

34

127

161

0

5

5

36

37

8

6

253

101

Surry

0

35

74

109

1

9

10

1

26

2

4

152

96

District Totals

0

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

0

13

22

35

3

3

6

3

Randolph

0

105

309

414

10

92

102

37

District Totals

0

118

331

449

13

95

108

40

District 19C

Rowan

0

99

221

320

11

131

142

31

District 20

Anson

0

2

36

38

0

0

0

6

Moore

0

55

86

141

0

23

23

8

Richmond

0

101

62

163

0

4

4

8

Stanly

0

12

72

104

1

2

3

3

Union

0

116

195

311

0

73

73

53

District Totals

0

306

451

757

1

102

103

78

District 21

Forsyth

2

291

342

635

1

405

406

134

District 22

Alexander

0

5

26

31

2

7

9

4

Davidson

0

157

175

332

2

43

45

17

Davie

0

28

63

91

8

5

13

9

Iredell

0

137

181

318

0

81

81

17

District Totals

0

327

445

772

12

136

148

47

District 23

Alleghany

0

24

29

53

2

4

6

0

Ashe

0

4

54

58

6

7

13

3

Wilkes

0

36

141

177

18

68

86

53

Yadkin

0

16

73

89

18

23

41

33

District Totals

0

SO

297

377

44

102

146

89

District 24

Avery

0

25

5

30

37

5

42

4

Madison

0

18

34

52

8

10

18

20

Mitchell

0

3

22

25

11

7

18

1

Watauga

0

12

41

53

2

21

21

7

Yancey

0

3

2

5

14

3

17

7

District Totals

0

61

104

165

72

46

118

39

CONDITIONS

Children
Parental Before

Rights Grand Court for

21

3

0

68

47

49

5

19

626

198

70

26

19

0

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

0

245

131

8

145

73

0

497

164

556

539

7

11

0

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

0

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

0

22

121

143

14

66

80

41

0

60

112

172

14

36

50

41

0

68

130

198

11

46

57

36

43

10

11

328

135

65

23

9

360

174

50

28

26

395

199

District Totals 0 150 363 513 39 148 187 118 158 61 46 1,083 508

District 26

Mecklenburg 0 602 2,001 2,603 4 466 470 65 245 64 80 3,527 1,082

District 27A

Gaston

0

184

293

477

2

212

214

39

81

24

53

888

317

District 27B

Cleveland

0

37

109

146

3

5

8

4

73

12

11

254

140

Lincoln

0

19

51

70

7

19

26

0

21

0

4

121

84

District Totals

0

56

160

216

10

24

34

4

94

12

15

375

224

District 28

Buncombe

0

86

242

328

30

198

228

122

142

42

48

910

384

District 29

Henderson

0

26

35

61

22

5

27

7

25

10

15

145

94

McDowell

0

32

81

113

5

11

16

21

12

7

10

179

69

Polk

0

8

12

20

0

2

2

4

3

1

2

32

24

Rutherford

0

28

56

84

18

30

48

24

27

4

6

193

86

Transylvania

0

14

50

64

2

2

4

25

26

3

13

135

37

District Totals

0

108

234

342

47

50

97

81

93

25

46

684

310

District 30

Cherokee

0

13

24

37

8

8

16

5

29

14

3

104

65

Clay

0

2

3

5

0

7

7

0

4

0

1

17

17

Graham

0

0

13

13

7

1

8

0

0

0

0

21

11

Haywood

0

10

13

23

24

34

58

47

44

12

13

197

95

Jackson

0

17

38

55

9

28

37

17

18

7

1

135

89

Macon

(J

8

13

21

0

14

14

12

11

9

4

71

41

Swain

0

0

1

1

4

8

12

6

13

4

0

36

36

District Totals

0

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

0

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-
<

>

0

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

0

V,

B

s

Q

—

0

V,

,2

3
0

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

0

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 _ 0 ^_

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

0

8

i
>

c

s

3

U

'S
,59

a

^

2

0

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 ro 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

0

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

0

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
0
<

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

0

rH

0

r--

v

u

CO

cn

in

t

=

=

<-j

CN

ST1
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

0

^-

b

-•-

y

'j

0

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

0

■r.

5

U

£ .S

^

a

r2

"3

S

J8

E

'£

0

-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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

3

0

0

27

65.1

41.0

Chowan

86

2

3

2

2

11

106

155.0

27.0

Currituck

6?

2

9

1

0

0

75

49.2

32.0

Dare

611

16

25

29

7

1

689

46.4

19.0

Gates

31

1

0

0

0

0

32

31.1

30.0

Pasquotank

343

25

29

39

14

0

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

0

0

331

37.7

26.0

Hyde

52

1

4

1

0

0

58

39.6

28.0

Martin

122

4

15

5

1

0

147

48.9

21.0

Tyrrell

30

6

5

3

0

0

44

60.6

36.5

Washington

48

0

2

0

0

0

50

30.7

15.0

District Totals

553

22

42

12

1

0

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

0

433

51.5

34.0

Jones

60

17

7

4

0

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

0

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

0

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

0

0

314

42.4

15.0

Davidson

1,337

75

60

15

0

0

1,487

40.1

27.0

Davie

248

37

32

44

2

0

363

76.5

50.0

Iredell

1,151

131

122

56

3

0

1,463

58.9

35.0

District Totals

3,011

262

227

122

5

0

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

0

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

0

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

5

137

114.9

27.0

Clay

33

4

2

2

0

0

41

41.4

15.0

Graham

53

8

5

13

0

0

79

76.2

34.0

Haywood

312

50

44

31

18

2

457

92.5

47.0

Jackson

151

10

7

9

0

0

177

55.2

35.0

Macon

144

9

4

1

1

1

160

46.4

28.0

Swain

82

3

9

0

0

0

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

0

0

178

31.4

24.0

Chowan

1,134

34

36

31

0

0

1,235

33.6

19.0

Currituck

770

18

44

11

2

0

845

38.9

27.0

Dare

2,615

117

194

76

2

1

3,005

46.9

31.0

Gates

391

12

5

4

0

0

412

33.5

25.0

Pasquotank

3,001

123

143

89

3

0

3,359

45.0

30.0

Perquimans

429

31

22

9

0

0

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

0

525

32.6

20.0

Martin

1,991

27

20

60

3

5

2,106

30.5

14.0

Tyrrell

377

31

4

7

0

0

419

39.4

29.0

Washington

1,033

12

4

9

0

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

3,393

51.1

34.0

Jones

723

40

31

20

2

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

3,162

47.0

Brunswick

3,882

279

275

98

12

2

4,548

50.3

Columbus

4,213

273

192

92

5

0

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

0

1,054

24.8

15.0

Rockingham

6,720

213

114

129

12

0

7,188

36.9

25.0

District Totals

7,728

239

125

136

14

0

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

0

2,801

57.8

41.0

Surry

3,911

384

380

154

10

0

4,839

57.4

43.0

District Totals

6,267

503

556

294

20

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

2,114

55.2

40.0

Davidson

10,335

865

601

188

16

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

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

0

0

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

0

751

68.4

46.0

Haywood

2,123

138

165

142

9

0

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

0

0

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.