If the return in the try block is reached, it transfers control to the finally block, and the function eventually returns normally (not a throw).

If an exception occurs, but then the code reaches a return from the catch block, control is transferred to the finally block and the function eventually returns normally (not a throw).

In your example, you have a return in the finally, and so regardless of what happens, the function will return 34, because finally has the final (if you will) word.

Although not covered in your example, this would be true even if you didn't have the catch and if an exception were thrown in the try block and not caught. By doing a return from the finally block, you suppress the exception entirely. Consider:

public class FinallyReturn {
  public static final void main(String[] args) {
    System.out.println(foo(args));
  }

  private static int foo(String[] args) {
    try {
      int n = Integer.parseInt(args[0]);
      return n;
    }
    finally {
      return 42;
    }
  }
}

If you run that without supplying any arguments:

$ java FinallyReturn

...the code in foo throws an ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException. But because the finally block does a return, that exception gets suppressed.

This is one reason why it's best to avoid using return in finally.

These are two different things:

• The catch block is only executed if an exception is thrown in the try block.
• The finally block is executed always after the try(-catch) block, if an exception is thrown or not.

In your example you haven't shown the third possible construct:

try {
    // try to execute this statements...
}
catch( SpecificException e ) {
    // if a specific exception was thrown, handle it here
}
// ... more catches for specific exceptions can come here
catch( Exception e ) {
    // if a more general exception was thrown, handle it here
}
finally {
    // here you can clean things up afterwards
}

And, like @codeca says in his comment, there is no way to access the exception inside the finally block, because the finally block is executed even if there is no exception.

Of course you could declare a variable that holds the exception outside of your block and assign a value inside the catch block. Afterwards you can access this variable inside your finally block.

Throwable throwable = null;
try {
    // do some stuff
}
catch( Throwable e ) {
    throwable = e;
}
finally {
    if( throwable != null ) {
        // handle it
    }
}

It depends on whether you can deal with the exceptions that can be raised at this point or not.

If you can handle the exceptions locally you should, and it is better to handle the error as close to where it is raised as possible.

If you can't handle them locally then just having a try / finally block is perfectly reasonable - assuming there's some code you need to execute regardless of whether the method succeeded or not. For example (from Neil's comment), opening a stream and then passing that stream to an inner method to be loaded is an excellent example of when you'd need try { } finally { }, using the finally clause to ensure that the stream is closed regardless of the success or failure of the read.

However, you will still need an exception handler somewhere in your code - unless you want your application to crash completely of course. It depends on the architecture of your application exactly where that handler is.

The only time a finally block will not be executed is when you call exit() before finally is reached. The exit() call will shutdown the JVM, so no subsequent line of code will be run.

EDIT: This is not entirely correct. See the comments below for additional information.