## Facts

- William English and Roosevelt English left a Philadelphia tavern on May 31, 1967, arguing over a $10 debt Roosevelt allegedly owed William.
- William punched Roosevelt, knocking him to the pavement; Roosevelt struck his head and was rendered unconscious.
- While Roosevelt was unconscious, William searched Roosevelt’s pockets and took his wallet, which was empty.
- Roosevelt died eight days later from cranial-cerebral injuries caused by the punch, fall, and head impact.
- The Commonwealth prosecuted the homicide as felony murder premised on attempted robbery; William’s defense was that he acted to collect a debt he believed was owed to him, not to steal.

## Issues

1. Whether a new trial was properly granted where the jury charge on robbery stated that a forcible taking is robbery even if the defendant believed the victim owed him money.
2. Whether such an instructional error was “basic and fundamental” and thus reviewable despite the defendant’s failure to take any exception to the charge.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the order granting a new trial.
- The Court held the challenged robbery instruction was basic and fundamental error because it effectively negated the defendant’s only defense.
- The Court ruled the error was reviewable despite the lack of any exception to the jury charge.

## Legal Principles

- A jury instruction that removes or invalidates the defendant’s sole theory of defense may constitute basic and fundamental error requiring a new trial.
- Basic and fundamental error in a criminal charge may be corrected on appeal even absent a preserved objection.
- Robbery requires a felonious intent to steal; a good-faith claim of right to property or payment can bear on whether the required intent exists, so a categorical instruction equating forcible debt collection with robbery misstates the law.

## Conclusion

Because the trial court’s instruction told jurors that a forcible taking is robbery even if the defendant believed the victim owed him money—thereby nullifying the claim-of-right defense central to the case—the error was fundamental and supported granting a new trial notwithstanding the absence of an objection.


Commonwealth v. English, 446 Pa. 161, 279 A.2d 4 (Pa. 1971)