During jury deliberations in appellant’s trial for robbery, the foreperson informed the court that there was a lone holdout juror who believed the evidence was “too weak,” and that there was no reason to deliberate further if that juror remained on the jury. The court inquired of the holdout juror whether she was deliberating, and she replied in the affirmative. The court excused the juror and substituted the alternate. The jury returned shortly thereafter with a guilty verdict. Here, the appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court erred in dismissing the holdout juror without good cause. A more concrete demonstration of misconduct is required for dismissal. The error was prejudicial and required reversal. However, double jeopardy principles did not bar retrial.