208 A.3d 734
D.C.2019Background
- At ~1:30 a.m. Rahman sat in a McDonald's, was told by on-site special police officer (SPO) Latisha Chapman that McDonald's has a no‑loitering policy and he needed to buy something or leave; Rahman refused and began panhandling.
- SPO Chapman prepared an internal McDonald's incident report after the encounter; she kept it in McDonald's files and emailed it to McDonald's personnel but did not provide it to police or prosecutors.
- MPD Officer Joseph Thomas arrived, told Rahman the restaurant was private and he had to leave; Rahman left briefly, returned within minutes, approached Officer Thomas, and was arrested for unlawful entry.
- At trial Rahman moved under the Jencks Act for production of SPO Chapman’s report (or to strike her testimony); the trial court denied the motion, finding the report was not in government possession.
- After a bench trial the court found Rahman guilty of unlawful entry for remaining on private property after a lawful request to leave by the person in charge (SPO Chapman). Rahman appealed, challenging the Jencks ruling and sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rahman) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SPO Chapman's internal McDonald's report was Jencks material (i.e., in government's possession) | Report was in SPO Chapman's possession and SPOs can be part of the prosecution team; possession should be imputed to government | Report was an internal corporate document not possessed by prosecutors or police and SPO Chapman was not part of the prosecution team here | Court affirmed: report not in government's possession; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying Jencks production |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict for unlawful entry | Rahman left after police told him to leave and re‑entry was in good faith to ask officer’s name/badge; government failed to prove unlawful entry beyond a reasonable doubt | SPO Chapman lawfully asked Rahman to leave, he remained ~10 minutes before police arrived and was later arrested after quickly returning; these facts support conviction | Court affirmed: evidence sufficient (Rahman remained after lawful demand to leave) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (1957) (establishes Jencks Act principles governing production of witness statements)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Weems v. United States, 191 A.3d 296 (D.C. 2018) (materials held by private security not necessarily government possession for discovery rules)
- Rivas v. United States, 783 A.2d 125 (D.C. 2001) (discusses scope of "government" and prosecution team for discovery)
- Myers v. United States, 15 A.3d 688 (D.C. 2011) (possession analysis under discovery rules when material held by third parties)