Case Name: STATE v. JEFFERSON
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1910-01-17
Citations: 125 La. 296
Docket Number: No. 17,987
Parties: STATE v. JEFFERSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 295–297

Head Matter:
(51 South. 203.)
No. 17,987.
STATE v. JEFFERSON.
(Jan. 17, 1910.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 931*) — Trial—Conduct on Jury — Separation — Time oe Raisins Objection.
Objection to the separation of the jury in a prosecution for a capital offense, in which a life sentence was imposed, should have been raised before verdict in order to be a ground for reversal, unless accused or his counsel did not learn thereof until after verdict, and cannot be Erst raised on the motion for new trial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 213C; Dec. Dig. § 931.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 956*) — Appeal—Separation of Jury — Knowledge of Separation.
The burden was on accused, in a prosecution for a capital offense, in which a life sentence was imposed, to show that he or his counsel did not know of the separation of the jury until after verdict, where objection on that ground was not made until then, in order to require a reversal for such separation.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2384-2390; Dec. Dig. § 956.*]
Appeal from Twelfth Judicial District Court, Parish of Vernon; Don E. So Relie, Judge.
Jake Jefferson was convicted of rape, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. Evans Hardin and Monk & Kay, for appellant. Walter Guión, Atty. Gen., and James G. Palmer, Dist. Atty. (R. G. Pleasant, of counsel), for the State.

Opinion:
PROVOSTY, J.
The defendant was convicted of rape, without capital punishment, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for life.
His complaint is that, although the prosecution was for a capital offense, the jury were allowed to separate. Separation of the jury must be availed of before verdict, unless knowledge of it came to the defendant or his counsel only after verdict. In the instant case the irregularity was urged 'for the first time after verdict by motion for a new trial; and defendant has not shown that the knowledge of it came to him or to his counsel only after verdict. The burden was on him to do so. State v. Gianfala, 113 La. 479, 37 South. 30.
Judgment affirmed.