People v. Mateo, 93 N.Y.2d 327 (1999)
The phrase “committed in a similar fashion” within a serial murder statute requires more than just the use of firearms; the murders must exhibit a notable resemblance in motive, method, and surrounding circumstances to be considered sufficiently similar.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed the interpretation of Penal Law § 125.27(1)(a)(xi), concerning intentional murder of multiple persons in separate incidents within a 24-month period, committed in a “similar fashion.” The defendant was charged with first-degree murder for four killings. The trial court dismissed these counts, and the Appellate Division affirmed, finding the evidence insufficient to establish the murders were committed in a similar fashion. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the murders lacked sufficient similarity in motive, method, and surrounding circumstances to meet the statutory requirement, even though firearms were used in each.
Facts
Defendant was indicted on 22 counts, including four intentional murders. The first two victims, Toro and Diaz, were shot at a phone booth. The third victim, Holley, was shot with a sawed-off shotgun after being identified as a thief. The fourth victim, Matos, was kidnapped, interrogated, and executed in defendant’s basement. All murders occurred within a 24-month period.
Procedural History
The County Court dismissed counts 11 and 12 of the indictment, charging defendant with first-degree murder under Penal Law § 125.27(1)(a)(xi), finding insufficient evidence that the murders were committed in a “similar fashion.” The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was sufficient to establish that the killings were “committed in a similar fashion” pursuant to Penal Law § 125.27(1)(a)(xi), based on the fact that firearms were used in each murder.
Holding
No, because the murders did not adequately resemble each other with respect to motive, method, and surrounding circumstances; therefore, they were not “committed in a similar fashion.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the phrase “committed in a similar fashion” has a well-settled legal meaning derived from People v. Molineux, which concerns the admissibility of uncharged crimes to prove identity. The Court emphasized that the Legislature intended the phrase to apply to serial killings, but it declined to create a rigid set of criteria for defining “similarity.” The Court reasoned that the application of the “similarity” element is inherently contextual. Examining the facts, the Court noted the victims were of different backgrounds and ages, the weapons varied (handguns and a shotgun), the motives differed (revenge, eliminating a snitch), and the locations varied (public sidewalk, street, basement). The Court concluded that the common denominator – the use of firearms – was insufficient to establish the murders were committed in a “similar fashion.” The Court stated, “By any standard, the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient to establish the ‘committed in a similar fashion’ element of the statute.”