# Commonwealth v. Matthews

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753214

## 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 Pomeroy
- **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/9753214

## 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

Mr. Justice Pomeroy,
in his dissent, has focused on
the denial of equal protection and the basic weakness in the rule which the majority here again reiterates. I believe we should not let this case pass without correction.
Secondly, it is of course unarguable that voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense in an indictment for murder. The jury should be so instructed. Furthermore, the jury should be advised that a verdict of voluntary manslaughter is one of the verdicts returnable under a murder indictment. The failure to do so obviously creates many potentials for incomplete, unfair, and unequal considerations in the deliberations of the jury and the verdict and treatment accorded the accused.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753214. Public record. Not legal advice.