Former fire chief convicted in Armstrong County sexual assault case |
Valley News Dispatch

Former fire chief convicted in Armstrong County sexual assault case

Tom Davidson
Mark Feeney
David John Croyle

One of two Armstrong County men accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy in 2016 was found guilty by a jury.

Mark Alan Feeney, 56, was convicted Wednesday on charges of statutory sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, unlawful contact with a minor and corruption of minors.

Feeney is a former chief of the East Franklin Volunteer Fire Department who formerly served as a borough councilman in Applewold.

The jury deliberated less than 90 minutes before returning the verdict, according to Feeney’s attorney, Marc D. Daffner.

“Obviously, we are disappointed, and we don’t believe the evidence was sufficient for conviction,” Daffner said. “We respect the jury system and the court system, and we’ll move on from here.”

Sentencing is set for Aug. 22.

The victim in the case told police he first met Feeney in 2016 at a Kittanning park. They became Facebook friends, had sexually explicit conversations and exchanged nude photos. Around Easter 2016, the victim met Feeney at his Applewold home three times for sex, which wasn’t consensual, the victim told police.

Another man, David John Croyle, 61, is scheduled to go to trial in July on separate charges of sexually assaulting the same boy. Croyle is a Kittanning councilman, newspaper publisher and pastor.

Tom Davidson is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tom at 724-226-4715, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.