The trial court properly instructed the jury, pursuant to CALJIC 17.41.1, that they were obligated to advise the court if any juror refused to deliberate, or expressed an intention either to disregard the law or to decide the case based upon penalty or punishment or any other improper basis. Rather than having a chilling effect on jury deliberations, the instruction serves the important functions of protecting the due process right to fair trial and promoting the rule of law, which jury ification threatens. The prosecutor’s peremptory challenge to Juror P. could not have caused any prejudice to appellant, as P. was excused as an alternate and no alternate was ever seated to deliberate.