In a highly fact specific case, the appellate court (which had been directed to reconsider in light of People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466) concluded the trial court did not err in dismissing a juror on the grounds that she was improperly considering the penalty as part of her deliberations. The juror made an ambiguous remark, which almost all the other jurors interpreted as indicating she was considering penalty, although the juror herself denied doing so. The trial court had a duty to inquire, and its inquiry of each juror was reasonable. The court could rely on the reports of 10 of the jurors , which provided substantial evidence to support the dismissal. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that no misconduct had occurrd by another juror.