No. 63 E.D. Appeal Docket 1983, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, dated October 1, 1982, at No. 1446 Philadelphia, 1981, vacating in part, and affirming in part, the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Criminal Division, at No. 1314-80, Pa. Super. ,
Nix, C.j., and Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala and Papadakos, JJ.
In 1980, appellant Matheno Ford-Bey was convicted by a jury of attempted murder, recklessly endangering another
person, and possession of an instrument of crime with intent to employ it criminally. After the denial of post-trial motions, appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of two to five years for attempted murder and one to three years for possession of an instrument of crime; no sentence was imposed for the crime of recklessly endangering another person. On appeal, the Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence for possession of an instrument of crime and affirmed the judgment of sentence for attempted murder. Commonwealth v. Ford-Bey, 306 Pa. Super. 288, 452 A.2d 729 (1982). We granted appellant's petition for allowance of appeal and we now reverse.*fn1
Appellant first argues that his objection to the trial court's charge to the jury was properly preserved for appellate review. We agree.
Immediately before counsels' closing arguments appellant presented his points for charge to the trial judge. After closing arguments, trial was recessed until 2:00 p.m., at which time the judge charged the jury. At the conclusion of the charge, the court asked each attorney whether he had any additions, deletions or corrections, and the following exchange took place:
MR. KEENAN [Appellant's counsel]: I have none, other than the exceptions we mentioned previously.*fn2
THE COURT: Satisfactory, . . . Mr. Keenan?
At this point the jury retired to deliberate, and the following exchange occurred ...