# Commonwealth v. Matthews

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 29, 1971 · 446 Pa. 65

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753213

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Matthews, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 29, 1971
- **Citations:** 446 Pa. 65; 285 A.2d 510; 1971 Pa. LEXIS 604
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Roberts
- **Judges:** Jones, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Babbibbi, Bobebts, Bell
- **Cited by:** 95 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753213

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming denial of motion to suppress because, “[t]o rule otherwise, merely because the warrant specified a ‘pocket knife’ whereas ‘a kitchen knife’ was seized would be hypertechnical and contrary to the common-sense approach mandated by [the United States Supreme Court]”
- finding valid warrant which specified “pocket knife” but officers seized “kitchen knife”

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I join the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Pomeroy and also wish to add two additional brief observations.
First, many of our cases decided prior to Commonwealth v. Flax, 331 Pa. 145 , 200 Atl. 632 (1938), accepted without question the proposition “that on a trial for murder where there is no evidence which in the *78 remotest degree points to the offense of manslaughter, the court commits no error in instructing the jury that a verdict of guilty of manslaughter would not be warranted.” Commonwealth v. Yeager, 329 Pa. 81, 85 , 196 Atl. 827, 830 (1938); accord Commonwealth v. Carroll, 326 Pa. 135 , 191 Atl. 610 (1937); Commonwealth v. Crossmire, 156 Pa. 304 , 27 Atl. 40 (1893) ; Commonwealth v. Buccieri, 153 Pa. 535 , 26 Atl. 228 (1893).
The subsequent restatement of that rule seems to have been made without any apparent awareness of the substantive difference between the principle of Yeager, supra, and Flax and the cases decided thereafter.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753213. Public record. Not legal advice.