Court Opinion

ID: 9638565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:47:05.054906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:07.823875
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
This case raises once again the problems inherent in errors in a charge to which no exception is taken. The majority notes that no exception was taken to the language in the charge. But instead of deciding that this failure to object acts as a waiver of the claim1 *39or deciding whether the error is basic and fundamental,2 the majority simply goes on to decide the merits of appellant’s claim. To this procedure I must register two objections; first, it is my view that we should never consider errors in the charge to which no exception has been taken. The reasons why I believe such a review is incorrect have been set out in length in my recent opinions in Commonwealth v. Williams, 432 Pa. 557, 248 A. 2d 301 (1968) (dissenting opinion) and Commonwealth v. Simon, 432 Pa. 386, 248 A. 2d 289 (1968) (opinion in support of the order). See Commonwealth v. Scoleri, 432 Pa. 571, 248 A. 2d 295 (1968) (concurring opinion). Second, even if the basic and fundamental error test should become the standard, I think the majority should consistently apply it in all cases where there is an error below to which no objection is made. Instead the majority not only seems to apply the standard with little consistency, compare Commonwealth v. Scoleri, 432 Pa. 571, 248 A. 2d 295 (1968) with Commonwealth v. Williams, 432 Pa. 557, 248 A. 2d 301 (1968), but forgets to apply it at all in certain cases.
Because I think at the least this Court should act with uniformity and at best adopt the waiver rule which I have supported, I concur in the result.

 See Commonwealth v. Simon, 432 Pa. 386, 248 A. 2d 289 (1968) (opinion in support of the order).

 See Commonwealth v. Williams, 432 Pa. 557, 248 A. 2d 301 (1968) (majority opinion).