Opinion ID: 2215536
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: People v Rahman

Text: There was testimony at defendant Rahman's trial that during the early morning hours of December 3, 1987, defendant argued with Tabu Stokes in a nightclub in Brooklyn. About 20 minutes later, defendant fired several shots at Stokes, killing him. During trial, the court interrupted the jury's deliberations to send them to dinner and instructed them as follows: I think it is a good time for dinner. We're going to send you out for dinner now. You'll come back and continue your deliberations for awhile after dinner   . Have a good dinner. Don't discuss the case, of course, during your dinner. The alternates will join you for dinner. Defendant registered no protest. He was convicted of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial. It too found the error reviewable as a matter of law notwithstanding the absence of an objection and concluded that permitting the alternate jurors to dine with the regular jurors after deliberations had commenced violated CPL 270.30 and 310.10.