J-S21012-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MATTHEW ROBERT DREIBELBIS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1433 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 3, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-14-CR-0001304-2017

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 30, 2022

Appellant, Matthew Robert Dreibelbis, appeals nunc pro tunc from the 

judgment of sentence entered on October 3, 2018. Appellant challenges the 

trial court’s decision to accept Pennsylvania State Trooper Todd Neumyer as 

an expert in firearm and tool mark examination. After careful review, we 

affirm. 

On August 11, 2017, Appellant used a revolver to shoot Jeremy 

Cantolina in the head, killing him. Appellant’s subsequent murder trial began 

on September 24, 2018. Relevant to the instant appeal, the Commonwealth 

presented trial testimony from Pennsylvania State Troopers Jeffrey Ebeck and 

Neumyer. Trooper Ebeck testified that Appellant told him where to find the 

revolver Appellant had used to kill Cantolina. Trooper Neumyer then testified 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S21012-22

- 2 -

as an expert in firearm and tool mark examination.

1 He explained that ballistic 

match testing proved that Appellant’s revolver was used to kill Cantolina.

2

On September 26, 2018, the jury convicted Appellant of First-Degree 

Murder.3 On October 3, 2018, the court sentenced Appellant to life without 

parole. Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal but, due to circumstances not 

relevant here, this Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal. On September 27, 

2021, following PCRA proceedings, the PCRA court reinstated Appellant’s right 

to file a direct appeal. Appellant then timely filed the instant appeal, and both 

he and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

Appellant’s single issue on appeal challenges the trial court’s decision to 

accept Trooper Neumyer as an expert in firearm and tool mark examination.

Appellant’s Br. at 5. Appellant argues that because Trooper Neumyer admitted 

that ballistic match testing involves a certain degree of subjective 

interpretation by the tester, the trial court should not have accepted Trooper 

Neumyer as an expert. Id. at 13-20.

____________________________________________

1 Appellant preserved the instant issue by objecting to the trial court’s decision 

to accept Trooper Neumyer as an expert. N.T. Trial, 9/25/18, at 75.

2 Trooper Neumyer explained that he test-fired two rounds from Appellant’s 

revolver, then used a microscope to compare the marks that the revolver 

made on those rounds to the marks on the bullet recovered from Cantolina’s 

skull. N.T. Trial, 9/25/18, at 96-97. Trooper Neumyer opined that based on 

the high degree of similarity between the markings, Appellant’s revolver fired 

all three shots. Id. at 107.

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a). 
J-S21012-22

- 3 -

The qualification of a witness as an expert lies within the discretion of 

the trial court, and we will not disturb the decision absent an abuse of 

discretion. Commonwealth v. Malseed, 847 A.2d 112, 114 (Pa. Super. 

2004). “The standard for qualifying an expert witness is a liberal one: the 

witness need only have a reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge on 

a subject for which expert testimony is admissible.” Commonwealth v. 

Kinard, 95 A.3d 279, 288 (Pa. Super. 2014). Once a witness has qualified to 

testify as an expert, “the weight to be given such testimony is for the trier of 

fact to determine.” Pa.R.E. 702 cmt. (quoting Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, 

Inc., 664 A.2d 525, 528 (Pa. 1995)).

This Court has recognized the general admissibility of ballistic match 

testing evidence. Commonwealth v. Whitacre, 878 A.2d 96, 101 (Pa. 

Super. 2005). Thus, the controversy before us is whether the trial court 

abused its discretion in finding that Trooper Neumyer possessed specialized 

knowledge on firearm and tool mark examination.

During voir dire, Trooper Neumyer testified that he has been a firearm 

and tool mark examiner for over 20 years and has handled approximately 120 

to 200 cases per year during that time. N.T. Trial, 9/25/18, at 69, 72. He holds 

a bachelor’s degree in biology and a certificate of achievement in the field of 

forensics and police sciences, underwent a six-month detailed study of 

firearms and firearm-related investigation when he joined the Pennsylvania 

State Police, and spent approximately two years as an understudy to a firearm 

and tool mark examiner with the state police. Id. at 70-71. He continues to 
J-S21012-22

- 4 -

read books, journals, and publications “on the topics of firearms, firearms 

investigation, and firearm and tool mark examination,” and completed 

“armors training” with several firearm manufacturers. Id. at 71. Prior to 

Appellant’s trial, Trooper Neumyer had been qualified as an expert in forensic 

firearm and tool mark examination in 108 criminal proceedings. Id. at 73-74.4

At the conclusion of qualification questioning, the Commonwealth entered 

Trooper Neumyer’s curriculum vitae into evidence. Id. at 73. Based on these 

qualifications, the trial court accepted Trooper Neumyer as an expert in 

firearm and tool mark examination. Id. at 75. 

In addressing Appellant’s issue raised in this appeal, the trial court found 

that it was without merit. Trial Ct. Op., 12/3/18, at 2. The court explained that 

it accepted Trooper Neumyer as an expert based on evidence of his skill and 

training. Id. Based on our review, we conclude that the trial court properly 

exercised its discretion. 

Trooper Neumyer’s extensive experience in firearm and tool mark 

examination supports the trial court’s finding that he possesses specialized 

knowledge in the field. Since Trooper Neumyer has specialized knowledge 

about a subject for which this Court has determined expert testimony is 

____________________________________________

4 This Court has affirmed the admissibility of Trooper Neumyer’s expert 

testimony on ballistic match testing on several occasions. See 

Commonwealth v. Jones, No. 1679 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 1, 

2018); Commonwealth v. Walker, No. 494 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. filed Feb. 

23, 2018); Commonwealth v. Brooks, No. 953 MDA 2014 (Pa. Super. filed 

June 2, 2015). 
J-S21012-22

- 5 -

generally admissible, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s 

decision to accept Trooper Neumyer as an expert.

Judgment of Sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 08/30/2022