cause for reversible error in Alabama

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)" In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: "The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that `a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.' Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)" In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: "The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that `a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.' Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)" In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: "The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that `a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.' Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)" In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: "The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that `a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.' Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)" In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: "The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that `a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.' Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1979"A. It was." In Belcher v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 325 So.2d 195 , cert. quashed, Ala., 325 So.2d 199 (1975), this Court quoted Palmore v. State , 283 Ala. 501 , 218 So.2d 830 (1969), which stated the rule: ". . . [T]hat a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of defendant unless the state affirmatively shows that defendant was not injured thereby.

1979"A. It was." In Belcher v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 325 So.2d 195 , cert. quashed, Ala., 325 So.2d 199 (1975), this Court quoted Palmore v. State , 283 Ala. 501 , 218 So.2d 830 (1969), which stated the rule: ". . . [T]hat a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of defendant unless the state affirmatively shows that defendant was not injured thereby.

1958This court, per Harwood, P. J., laid down the guiding principle in Wright v. State, 38 Ala.App. 64 , 79 So.2d 66 , 70: “It is now the well settled rule in this jurisdiction that a separation of a jury during the trial of a felony creates, prima facie, a cause for reversible error.

1958This court, per Harwood, P. J., laid down the guiding principle in Wright v. State, 38 Ala.App. 64 , 79 So.2d 66 , 70: “It is now the well settled rule in this jurisdiction that a separation of a jury during the trial of a felony creates, prima facie, a cause for reversible error.

1979"A. It was." In Belcher v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 325 So.2d 195 , cert. quashed, Ala., 325 So.2d 199 (1975), this Court quoted Palmore v. State , 283 Ala. 501 , 218 So.2d 830 (1969), which stated the rule: ". . . [T]hat a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of defendant unless the state affirmatively shows that defendant was not injured thereby.

1979"A. It was." In Belcher v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 325 So.2d 195 , cert. quashed, Ala., 325 So.2d 199 (1975), this Court quoted Palmore v. State , 283 Ala. 501 , 218 So.2d 830 (1969), which stated the rule: ". . . [T]hat a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of defendant unless the state affirmatively shows that defendant was not injured thereby.

1977The rule of law concerning jury separation is set out in Christison v. State , 39 Ala. App. 175 , 96 So.2d 701 (1957), as follows: "The settled rule in this State is that the separation of the jury pending trial for felony cases creates, prima facie, a cause for reversible error.

1977The rule of law concerning jury separation is set out in Christison v. State , 39 Ala. App. 175 , 96 So.2d 701 (1957), as follows: "The settled rule in this State is that the separation of the jury pending trial for felony cases creates, prima facie, a cause for reversible error.

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1974Sept. 7, 1971.)” In Lynn v. State, 250 Ala. 384 , 34 So.2d 602 , the Supreme Court, through Simpson, J., stated: “The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction controlling the question is that ‘a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.’ Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69, 70 , 145 So. 650 ; Arnett v. State, 225 Ala. 8 , 141 So. 699 ; Butler v. State, 72 Ala. 179 ; Davis v. State, 209 Ala. 409 , 96 So. 187 ; Thompson v. S

1972In Mitchell v. State, 244 Ala. 503 , 14 So.2d 132 , the court quoting from Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69 , 145 So. 650 , stated: “While the rule is not now so strict, as at common law, as to the separation of the jury, it is the present rule in felony cases, especially capital ones, that a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.” The record as set out in this opinion ■demonstrates that it was affirmatively show

1972In Mitchell v. State, 244 Ala. 503 , 14 So.2d 132 , the court quoting from Payne v. State, 226 Ala. 69 , 145 So. 650 , stated: “While the rule is not now so strict, as at common law, as to the separation of the jury, it is the present rule in felony cases, especially capital ones, that a separation of the jury, after the trial has been entered upon, and before verdict, creates a cause for reversible error in favor of the defendant, unless the state affirmatively shows that the defendant was not thereby injured.” The record as set out in this opinion ■demonstrates that it was affirmatively show

1969Cash v. State, 43 Ala.App. 390 , 191 So.2d 230 ; Chappelle v. State, 267 Ala. 37 , 99 So.2d 431 .

1969Cash v. State, 43 Ala.App. 390 , 191 So.2d 230 ; Chappelle v. State, 267 Ala. 37 , 99 So.2d 431 .

1969Cash v. State, 43 Ala.App. 390 , 191 So.2d 230 ; Chappelle v. State, 267 Ala. 37 , 99 So.2d 431 .

1969Cash v. State, 43 Ala.App. 390 , 191 So.2d 230 ; Chappelle v. State, 267 Ala. 37 , 99 So.2d 431 .

1958A separation being shown, the burden is on the State to affirmatively establish that the separated juror or jurors were subjected to no influences or contacts that might have influenced their verdict. * * * ” Wright v. State, 38 Ala.App. 64 , 79 So.2d 66, 70 , as modified by opinion of Stakely, J., on certiorari 262 Ala. 420 , 79 So.2d 74 .

1958A separation being shown, the burden is on the State to affirmatively establish that the separated juror or jurors were subjected to no influences or contacts that might have influenced their verdict. * * * ” Wright v. State, 38 Ala.App. 64 , 79 So.2d 66, 70 , as modified by opinion of Stakely, J., on certiorari 262 Ala. 420 , 79 So.2d 74 .