Court Opinion

ID: 9700386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:25:27.640564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:08.436251
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts :
I concur in the result because neither a specific nor even a general exception was taken to the charge of the trial court. The majority’s ever-changing doctrine of basic and fundamental error continues to mystify me. Here, contrary to past applications of the rule, basic and fundamental error is found without requiring even a general exception. Sound principles of judical administration mandate that the type of error here asserted not be heard for the first time on appeal, when the error could have been brought to the trial court’s attention in sufficient time to enable that court to correct any possible prejudice.
As I have stated at greater length elsewhere, . . the basic and fundamental error test used by the majority in the instant case is too vague and lends itself to inconsistent results.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 432 Pa. 557, 570, 248 A. 2d 301, 308 (1968) (dissenting opinion). Compare Commonwealth v. Scoleri, 432 Pa. 571, 248 A. 2d 295 (1968). This case represents yet another instance of the majority’s inability to apply this standard with an even hand. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Butler, 442 Pa. 30, 272 A. 2d 916 (1971); Commonwealth v. Jennings, 442 Pa. 18, 274 A. 2d 767 (1971) ; Commonwealth v. Lowery, 440 Pa. 361, 269 A. 2d 724 (1970).