## Facts

- Houshang Mahboubian owned a purported collection of Persian antiquities insured for $18.5 million and stored in a secure New York warehouse after shipment from Switzerland.
- Nedjatollah Sakhai organized a staged theft as an “insurance job,” recruiting professional burglars through an intermediary; one recruit became a police informant.
- Mahboubian marked the shipping crates with red initials; Sakhai told the burglars to target crates marked with those initials and provided a diagram indicating their warehouse location.
- Burglars broke into the warehouse under police surveillance, located the targeted crates, and began removing items before being arrested.
- Mahboubian and Sakhai were jointly tried and convicted of burglary, attempted grand larceny (insurance proceeds), and conspiracy.
- Both sought severance, claiming antagonistic defenses; the trial court denied severance, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying severance where codefendants presented mutually exclusive and irreconcilable defenses causing compelling prejudice.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove attempted grand larceny and burglary, including conduct beyond preparation and intent to commit a crime inside the unlawfully entered premises.

## Decision

- The court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial.
- Denial of severance was an abuse of discretion because the defenses were antagonistic and irreconcilable, creating compelling prejudice.
- The evidence was legally sufficient to support attempted grand larceny because defendants’ conduct went beyond preparation and came dangerously near completion.
- The evidence was legally sufficient to support burglary because the unlawful entry was undertaken with intent that a crime be committed inside.

## Legal Principles

- Joint trials are generally favored, but severance is required when a joint trial produces “compelling prejudice.”
- Compelling prejudice exists when codefendants’ defenses are mutually exclusive such that accepting one defense requires rejecting the other, and the trial effectively turns each codefendant into a “second prosecutor.”
- Severance may be required when evidentiary limitations in a joint trial (including redaction of a defendant’s statement to avoid implicating a codefendant) materially impair a defendant’s ability to present an otherwise available defense.
- Attempt liability requires proof of conduct beyond mere preparation that is “dangerously near” completion of the intended crime.
- Burglary is supported where the defendant causes or facilitates an unlawful entry with intent that a crime be committed inside the premises at the time of entry.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new, severed trial because mutually exclusive defenses and related evidentiary constraints created compelling prejudice, while also holding the proof sufficient to sustain the attempt and burglary charges under New York’s “dangerously near” attempt standard and intent-at-entry requirement for burglary.


People v. Mahboubian, 543 N.E.2d 34 (N.Y. 1989)