State Supreme Court upholds trooper's conviction in 2006 Blairsville slaying
The state Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a former Pennsylvania state trooper in the 2006 slaying of a Blairsville dentist.
An Indiana County jury convicted Kevin J. Foley, 47, formerly of White Township, in the fatal beating and slashing of Dr. John Yelenic in his home in 2006. Foley is serving a mandatory life sentence at SCI Retreat in Luzerne County.
The appellate court issued its ruling in a one-sentence statement stating the former trooper's “Petition for Allowance of Appeal is denied.”
On Dec. 28, 2011, a three-member Superior Court panel dismissed Foley's arguments seeking to throw out his first-degree murder conviction after an eight-day trial on April 13, 2009.
“This is very good news,” said Yelenic's cousin, Mary Ann Clark.
Foley had been living with Yelenic's estranged wife, Michele Yelenic, who was going through a bitter divorce with the dentist.
Foley's attorneys have argued that Indiana County President Judge William Martin erred when he permitted jurors to hear evidence about bloody footprints left near the body.
The defense has argued the print evidence was “irrelevant” because the shoe prints found at the scene could not authoritatively be determined to be any particular brand, style, or size of shoe.
Deputy Attorney General Anthony Krastek presented trial evidence linking the prints to a specific Asics brand running shoe favored by Foley. Clark said Krastek informed her of the Jan. 4 opinion this week.
Michele Yelenic was not charged in the case.
Paul Peirce is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.