Court Opinion

ID: 9753672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:22:15.895076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:40.052959
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice O’Brien :
While 1 concur with the view of the majority that appellant’s trial strategy in this case constitutes a deliberate bypass of an objection to the erroneous instruction on voluntary manslaughter, I must once again express my views concerning the necessity for specific exception to charge. The majority states that relief was denied in Commonwealth v. Jennings, 442 Pa. 18, 274 A. 2d 767 (1971), because the appellant’s failure to take a specific exception to the erroneous charge foreclosed our consideration of the issue on appeal, as mandated by Pa. E. Crim. P. 1119(b). While the quote from Jennings is accurate, it is clearly out of context. Belief was denied Jennings, not because of the asserted failure of compliance with Eule 1119(b), but rather because a plurality of the Court concluded that the asserted error did not rise to the level of basic and fundamental. Jennings went on to state specifically that Eule 1119(b) did not change the law of Pennsylvania and that the basic and fundamental error rule, as summarized in Commonwealth v. Williams, 432 Pa. 557, 248 A. 2d 301 (1968) still obtained in Pennsylvania.
My dissenting opinion in Jennings was joined by Justice Eagen, and a majority of this Court was, there*282fore, in agreement that “Rule 1119(b), Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, did not change the law enunciated by us relative to general and specific exceptions to charge,” Justice Eagen and I being in agreement with then-Chief Justice Bell, the author of the opinion of the Court, and Justice Pomeroy, who joined in that opinion. My dissent in Jennings was based upon my view that the asserted erroneous charge constituted basic and fundamental error. The instant case is distinguishable on its facts, and the record here supports the conclusion that trial strategy dictated the action of counsel at trial, and it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that I concur in the result reached by the majority.
Mr. Justice Eagen and Mr. Justice Pomeroy join in this concurring opinion.