From Domestic Dispute to Deadly Pursuit: A Timeline of Events

The ordeal began with a reported domestic assault at an apartment on Lyndale Avenue in South Minneapolis. This initial incident quickly spiraled into a series of increasingly desperate acts as Matariyeh fled law enforcement, ultimately crossing county lines and endangering the lives of innocent bystanders. The case highlights the complex interplay between domestic violence, mental health, and public safety.

On October 22, 2024, the situation reached a tragic climax near Willmar. After a prolonged pursuit, Matariyeh’s vehicle was disabled by OnStar at the request of law enforcement. He then fatally shot Jerome Skluzacek, 55, of New London, a man he did not know, on the Highway 71/23 bypass. Prior to this, Matariyeh had shot and injured Peter Mayerchak, 25, of Lake Lillian, while fleeing police. Mayerchak was performing routine chores outside his home when he was attacked.

According to court documents, Matariyeh told crisis negotiators during the pursuit, “If I don’t see my daughter, I’m going to kill someone.” This statement underscores the emotional turmoil that fueled his actions and the devastating consequences of his choices.

Matariyeh’s defense attorney, William Walker, argued for concurrent sentencing, citing his client’s remorse and a unique legal plea known as a Norgaard plea, which acknowledges sufficient evidence for conviction despite a lack of memory of the events. However, the prosecution, led by First Assistant Kandiyohi County Attorney Kristen Pierce, emphasized the senselessness of the crimes and the vulnerability of the victims.

Pierce detailed how Matariyeh continued to fire upon a home in Lake Lillian, unaware that the victim’s wife was inside. She also highlighted Matariyeh’s continued anger towards his daughter’s mother, as revealed in a pre-sentence investigation, suggesting ongoing emotional instability.

Judge Stephen Wentzell ultimately imposed the presumptive sentences under Minnesota guidelines: 306 months for second-degree murder and 153 months for attempted second-degree murder, to be served consecutively. Matariyeh has already served 397 days in jail, which will be credited towards the attempted murder sentence.

Did You Know? Minnesota law requires convicted offenders to serve at least two-thirds of their sentence before being eligible for supervised release.

This case raises important questions about the resources available for individuals experiencing mental health crises and the potential for intervention before such tragedies occur. What more can be done to prevent similar incidents in the future?

The impact of this crime extends far beyond the immediate victims and their families. It has shaken the sense of security in both Minneapolis and Willmar, prompting a renewed focus on community safety and support services. How can communities better support victims of violence and address the root causes of such devastating events?

Matariyeh’s expected release date is March 25, 2050, with his sentence expiring on January 22, 2063. He expressed remorse during the sentencing hearing, apologizing to the families of his victims and even to his infant daughter, acknowledging the years he would miss from her life.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Ameer Matariyeh Case

• What charges was Ameer Matariyeh convicted of?

  Ameer Matariyeh was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder.

• What was the length of Matariyeh’s prison sentence?

  Matariyeh was sentenced to over 38 years in prison, with 306 months for second-degree murder and 153 months for attempted second-degree murder, to be served consecutively.

• Where did the crime spree originate?

  The crime spree began with a domestic assault reported in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

• Who were the victims in this case?

  Jerome Skluzacek, 55, of New London, was fatally shot. Peter Mayerchak, 25, of Lake Lillian, was injured but survived.

• What is a Norgaard plea and how did it apply to this case?

  A Norgaard plea allows a defendant to assert a loss of memory regarding the events while still acknowledging sufficient evidence for a conviction. It does not affect sentencing.