People v. Mahboubian
74 N.Y.2d 174, 543 N.E.2d 34, 544 N.Y.S.2d 769 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Severance of a joint criminal trial is required where the core of each co-defendant's defense is in irreconcilable conflict with the other and there is a significant danger that this conflict alone would lead the jury to infer guilt. Additionally, conduct constitutes a criminal attempt when it goes beyond mere preparation and comes 'dangerously near' the completion of the crime, even if further steps are required for consummation.
Facts:
- Houshang Mahboubian owned a collection of Persian antiquities, parts of which were suspected to be modern forgeries.
- In the summer of 1985, Mahboubian insured the collection with Lloyd’s of London for $18.5 million for transit to the United States for a potential sale.
- In October 1985, Mahboubian and his co-defendant, Nedjatollah Sakhai, visited a long-term storage facility in New York, where Mahboubian rented a vault. Sakhai rented a separate vault there a month later.
- In early December 1985, Sakhai hired several men, including a police informant named Daniel Cardebat, for an 'insurance job,' offering them $100,000 for a theft.
- Sakhai was recorded in phone calls with Mahboubian (referred to as 'Houshang' in London) discussing the plan.
- Mahboubian arranged for the collection to be shipped to and stored at the Regency Worldwide Packing warehouse in New York.
- While in Switzerland, Mahboubian marked the shipping crates with his initials in red ink, a detail Sakhai had previously told the hired thieves to look for.
- On the night of the planned theft, Cardebat and an accomplice broke into the Regency warehouse, located the marked crates, and began removing the antiquities, at which point they were arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- Houshang Mahboubian and Nedjatollah Sakhai were jointly indicted on charges of burglary, attempted grand larceny, and conspiracy.
- Before trial, both defendants filed motions in the trial court to be tried separately (severance), arguing that their defenses were antagonistic and would cause undue prejudice in a joint trial.
- The trial court denied the severance motions.
- Following a joint jury trial, both defendants were convicted on all counts.
- Defendants appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (New York's intermediate appellate court), which affirmed their convictions.
- Defendants were granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a joint criminal trial result in undue prejudice requiring severance where the core of each defendant's defense is in irreconcilable conflict with the other, and there is a significant danger the jury will infer guilt from the conflict alone?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaye, J.
Yes. A joint trial results in undue prejudice requiring severance where co-defendants' defenses are so irreconcilable that the jury might infer guilt from the conflict itself. Here, Mahboubian's defense was a total denial of involvement, claiming he was an innocent dupe. Sakhai's defense admitted participation in the theft but argued it was a publicity stunt planned with Mahboubian, or that he was Mahboubian's dupe, with no intent to defraud the insurer. The jury could not simultaneously credit both defenses; believing one necessitated disbelieving the other. This core conflict created compelling prejudice, as each defendant's summation was devoted to discrediting the other, effectively forcing the jury to conclude from the conflict that both were guilty. The court also held that the defendants' actions constituted attempted grand larceny because the staged burglary went beyond mere preparation and came 'dangerously near' to the crime's completion. The most hazardous parts of the scheme were complete, placing the final act (filing the claim) within their power.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Titone, J.
Yes. The justice concurred that the trial court's refusal to grant severance was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal. However, he dissented on the attempted grand larceny charge, arguing that the defendants' actions constituted only 'mere preparation' and did not meet New York's strict 'dangerous proximity' test for an attempt. The dissent argued that staging the theft was a foundational act, remote in time and place from the ultimate crime of defrauding the insurer. Several significant contingencies remained, such as filing the claim and surviving the insurer's investigation. By upholding the attempt conviction, the majority effectively diluted New York's standard and moved it closer to the Model Penal Code's less stringent 'substantial step' test, which the legislature has rejected.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear, two-part test for severance based on antagonistic defenses in New York, requiring that the defenses be irreconcilable at their core and that the conflict itself poses a danger of leading the jury to infer guilt. It reinforces the trial court's duty to protect against unfair prejudice that can arise when co-defendants become each other's primary accusers. Furthermore, the ruling on the attempt charge clarifies the application of the 'dangerous proximity' test to complex, multi-stage crimes, affirming that liability can attach even when significant steps remain, so long as the defendant's actions have progressed to a hazardous stage where the crime's completion is within their power.
