Commonwealth v. Foley, 38 A.3d 882

Foley, a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper, lived with Dr. Yelenic’s estranged wife and was tried for and convicted of first‑degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Dr. John Yelenic, a Blairsville dentist living alone, was murdered in his home in the early morning hours of April 13, 2006, after an eight‑day jury trial.
Appellant challenged several evidentiary rulings: excluding Betty Morris’s testimony about alleged acts involving Yelenic and his neighbor to show motive, admitting Dr. Perlin’s DNA testimony, admitting bloody shoeprint evidence, and the weight of the verdict.
The trial court’s rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with deference to admissibility decisions and a limited appellate role on weight of the evidence.
The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, finding no reversible error and concluding the challenged instructions on malice from use of a deadly weapon were proper under controlling Pennsylvania law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Morris testimony was properly excluded.	Foley argued Morris’s observations showed motive of Melissa Uss’s husband to kill Yelenic.	The court should admit motive evidence only if the proffer shows knowledge of the suggestive facts; here no knowledge by the husband existed.	No abuse; testimony properly excluded as irrelevant.
Whether Dr. Perlin’s DNA testimony was admissible under Frye.	Perlin’s TrueAllele methodology was novel and not generally accepted; should be excluded.	Perlin’s method is a refined product rule with general acceptance; admissible.	Admissible; no Frye abuse; no legitimate dispute over reliability.
Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.	Verdict contradicted the extensive evidence tying Foley to the crime.	Evidence supported the verdict; weight issue rests with trial court and is not disturbed on appeal.	Not against the weight of the evidence.
Whether the shoewprint evidence was improperly admitted.	Shoewprints were inconclusive and highly prejudicial.	Evidence was relevant and probative to Foley’s presence at the scene; weight for jury.	Admissible; not an abuse of discretion.
Whether the jury instruction on permissive inference of malice from use of a deadly weapon was proper.	The instruction is unconstitutional and should be overruled.	The instruction has been approved by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and must be followed.	Instruction upheld; not error.

Commonwealth v. Moser, 999 A.2d 602 (Pa. Super. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Commonwealth v. Giovanetti, 19 A.2d 119 (Pa. 1941) (motive evidence requires knowledge of the relevant facts)
Commonwealth v. Ward, 605 A.2d 796 (Pa. 1992) (relevance of certain motive evidence; exclusion as improper for lack of connection)
Commonwealth v. Boyle, 368 A.2d 661 (Pa. 1977) (admissibility of evidence showing another’s involvement to prove crime)
Commonwealth v. Blasioli, 713 A.2d 1117 (Pa. 1998) (Frye applicability to DNA mix interpretation)
Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC, 998 A.2d 962 (Pa. Super. 2010) (novelty doctrine; when to apply Frye to scientific evidence)
Commonwealth v. Grady, 839 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 2003) (Frye; general acceptance standard for novel scientific evidence)
Commonwealth v. Cruz, 921 A.2d 279 (Pa. Super. 2007) (weight of review; appellate discretion on weight claims)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d 268 (Pa. 2006) (permissive inference of malice from use of deadly weapon)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (due process and admissibility of evidence; confrontation)