Court Opinion

ID: 9756424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:28:08.344805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:21.808312
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
While I concur in the result, I do so only because appellant failed to take a specific objection to the challenged portion of the charge. 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. Jennings, 442 Pa. 18, 274 A. 2d 767 (1971); Commonwealth v. Lowery, 440 Pa. 361, 269 A. 2d 724 (1970); Commonwealth v. Myers, 439 Pa. 381, 266 A. 2d 756 (1970).