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
- 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.
- 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.