absence of a general exception in Pennsylvania

1958Indeed, even in the absence of a general exception, the appellate court of its own motion may reverse because of basic and fundamental error: Schmitt v. City of Phila., 248 Pa. 124 ; Marlowe v. Travelers Insurance Co., 313 Pa. 430 .” The Majority Opinion says: “Defendant contends that the trial Judge committed fundamental error in failing to charge the jury ‘that the evidence of alibi, may with the other facts in the case, raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt.’ ” The Majority then submits that the failure of the Judge to so charge does not entitle the defendant to a new trial becau

1958Indeed, even in the absence of a general exception, the appellate court of its own motion may reverse because of basic and fundamental error: Schmitt v. City of Phila., 248 Pa. 124 ; Marlowe v. Travelers Insurance Co., 313 Pa. 430 ." The Majority Opinion says: "Defendant contends that the trial Judge committed fundamental error in failing to charge the jury `that the evidence of alibi, may with the other facts in the case, raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt.'" The Majority then submits that the failure of the Judge to so charge does not entitle the defendant to a new trial becaus

1958Indeed, even in the absence of a general exception, the appellate court of its own motion may reverse because of basic and fundamental error: Schmitt v. City of Phila., 248 Pa. 124 ; Marlowe v. Travelers Insurance Co., 313 Pa. 430 .” The Majority Opinion says: “Defendant contends that the trial Judge committed fundamental error in failing to charge the jury ‘that the evidence of alibi, may with the other facts in the case, raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt.’ ” The Majority then submits that the failure of the Judge to so charge does not entitle the defendant to a new trial becau

1958Indeed, even in the absence of a general exception, the appellate court of its own motion may reverse because of basic and fundamental error: Schmitt v. City of Phila., 248 Pa. 124 ; Marlowe v. Travelers Insurance Co., 313 Pa. 430 ." The Majority Opinion says: "Defendant contends that the trial Judge committed fundamental error in failing to charge the jury `that the evidence of alibi, may with the other facts in the case, raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt.'" The Majority then submits that the failure of the Judge to so charge does not entitle the defendant to a new trial becaus

1972Patterson v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 322 Pa. 125, 128 , 185 A. 283 (1936).

1972Patterson v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 322 Pa. 125, 128 , 185 A. 283 (1936).

1970Commonwealth v. Williams, 432 Pa. 557 , 248 A. 2d 301 (1968); Patterson v. Pittsburgh Rys.

1970Commonwealth v. Williams, 432 Pa. 557 , 248 A. 2d 301 (1968); Patterson v. Pittsburgh Rys.

1970In O’Brien , involving a trial for bribery, the Court said at 546, 168 A. at 245 , “A man is not to be deprived of his liberty and reputation because of the inadvertence of a trial judge or the carelessness of his counsel in failing to call the attention of the trial court to palpable error which offends against the fundamentals of a fair and impartial trial.” Even in the absence of a general exception an appellate court may reverse because of basic and fundamental error.

1970In O'Brien , involving a trial for bribery, the Court said at 546, 168 A. at 245 , "A man is not to be deprived of his liberty and reputation because of the inadvertence of a trial judge or the carelessness of his counsel in failing to call the attention of the trial court to palpable error which offends against the fundamentals of a fair and impartial trial." Even in the absence of a general exception an appellate court may reverse because of basic and fundamental error.

1965Co., 410 Pa. 139, 145 , Justice JONES, speaking for the Court, pointed out that: "Upon appellate review we are not bound by the reason or reasons advanced by the court below in support of a judgment or order for it is the judgment or order itself which is the subject of review." and quoted Chief Justice WOODWARD, who said, in Thomas v. Mann, 28 Pa. 520 , 522: "The only error upon the record is a wrong reason for a right judgment; but, as we review *157 not reasons but judgments, we find nothing here to correct." The pertinent rule was even more forcibly declared in Sherwood v. Elgart, 383 Pa.

1965Co., 410 Pa. 139, 145 , Justice JONES, speaking for the Court, pointed out that: "Upon appellate review we are not bound by the reason or reasons advanced by the court below in support of a judgment or order for it is the judgment or order itself which is the subject of review." and quoted Chief Justice WOODWARD, who said, in Thomas v. Mann, 28 Pa. 520 , 522: "The only error upon the record is a wrong reason for a right judgment; but, as we review *157 not reasons but judgments, we find nothing here to correct." The pertinent rule was even more forcibly declared in Sherwood v. Elgart, 383 Pa.

1965Co., 410 Pa. 139, 145 , Justice JONES, speaking for the Court, pointed out that: "Upon appellate review we are not bound by the reason or reasons advanced by the court below in support of a judgment or order for it is the judgment or order itself which is the subject of review." and quoted Chief Justice WOODWARD, who said, in Thomas v. Mann, 28 Pa. 520 , 522: "The only error upon the record is a wrong reason for a right judgment; but, as we review *157 not reasons but judgments, we find nothing here to correct." The pertinent rule was even more forcibly declared in Sherwood v. Elgart, 383 Pa.

1960Indeed, even in the absence of a general exception, the appellate court of its own motion may reverse. . .” It is our duty to review and determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion: Decker v. Kulesza, 369 Pa. 259 (1952), 85 A. 2d 413 .

1960Indeed, even in the absence of a general exception, the appellate court of its own motion may reverse. . .” It is our duty to review and determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion: Decker v. Kulesza, 369 Pa. 259 (1952), 85 A. 2d 413 .

1958In support of this contention the Majority cites and quotes from Commonwealth v. Jordon, 328 Pa. 439 , and Commonwealth v. Blanchard, 345 Pa. 289 , but neither of these cases supports the Majority’s position.

1958In support of this contention the Majority cites and quotes from Commonwealth v. Jordon, 328 Pa. 439 , and Commonwealth v. Blanchard, 345 Pa. 289 , but neither of these cases supports the Majority's position.

1958In support of this contention the Majority cites and quotes from Commonwealth v. Jordon, 328 Pa. 439 , and Commonwealth v. Blanchard, 345 Pa. 289 , but neither of these cases supports the Majority’s position.

1958In support of this contention the Majority cites and quotes from Commonwealth v. Jordon, 328 Pa. 439 , and Commonwealth v. Blanchard, 345 Pa. 289 , but neither of these cases supports the Majority's position.

1955In a proper case even in the absence of a general exception we may reverse because of basic and fundamental error) Dandridge v. Exhibitors Service Co., 167 Pa.. Superior Ct. 143, 74 A. 2d 670 .

1950Indeed, even in *150 the absence of a general exception, the appellate court of its own motion may reverse because of basic and fundamental error: Schmitt v. City of Phila., 248 Pa. 124 ; Marlowe v. Travelers Insurance Co., 313 Pa. 430 .” See, also, Finkelstein v. McClain, 331 Pa. 198 , 200 A. 596 .

1950Indeed, even in *150 the absence of a general exception, the appellate court of its own motion may reverse because of basic and fundamental error: Schmitt v. City of Phila., 248 Pa. 124 ; Marlowe v. Travelers Insurance Co., 313 Pa. 430 .” See, also, Finkelstein v. McClain, 331 Pa. 198 , 200 A. 596 .

1940In the absence of a general exception, the errors now complained of cannot be reviewed even though they had been assigned as error, (Curtis v. Winston, 186 Pa. 492 , 40 A. 786 ; McConnell v. Penna.

1940In the absence of a general exception, the errors now complained of cannot be reviewed even though they had been assigned as error, (Curtis v. Winston, 186 Pa. 492 , 40 A. 786 ; McConnell v. Penna.

1938Co., 305 Pa. 259 ; Medvidovich v. Schultz, 309 Pa. 450 ; Ellsworth v. Lauth, 311 Pa. 286 .

1938Co., 305 Pa. 259 ; Medvidovich v. Schultz, 309 Pa. 450 ; Ellsworth v. Lauth, 311 Pa. 286 .

1938Co., 305 Pa. 259 ; Medvidovich v. Schultz, 309 Pa. 450 ; Ellsworth v. Lauth, 311 Pa. 286 .