During appellant’s jury trial for second degree murder, the trial court dismissed a juror who it concluded was “refusing to deliberate.” The juror had participated in deliberations for a period of time, but had arrived at a conclusion and expressed a belief that further discussion would not alter her views, and that “her mind was made up.” The appellate court here reversed. The fact that a juror disagrees with the majority of the jury as to what the evidence shows or how the law should be applied to the facts is not a ground for discharge. The other jurors were as entrenched in their opinions as the single-holdout juror was in hers. This suggests a reasonable amount of time had passed in deliberations. A juror who has deliberated for a reasonable period of time may not be discharged for refusing to deliberate simply because she believes that further discussion would not alter her view. Double jeopardy principles, however, did not bar retrial of the case.