Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:While I concur in the result, I do so because no specific objection was made to the charge on the point now assigned as error. As I have stated at greater length elsewhere, . . the basic and fundamental error test used by the majority in the instant case is too vague and lends itself to inconsistent results.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 432 Pa. 557, 570, 248 A. 2d 301, 308 (1968) (dissenting opinion). Compare Commonwealth v. Scoleri, 432 Pa. 571, 248 A. 2d 295 (1968). This case represents yet another instance of the majority’s inability to apply this standard with an even hand. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Lowery, 440 Pa. 361, 269 A. 2d 724 (1970); Commonwealth v. Myers, 439 Pa. 381, 266 A. 2d 756 (1970).
Mr. Justice Jones joins in this concurring opinion.