In State v. Andriano, 215 Ariz. 497, P55, 215 Ariz. 497, 161 P.3d 540, 552 (2007), the jurors asked the following question: "If we are unable to reach a unanimous verdict, what is the procedure that will be followed?" Id. at, P54, 161 P.3d at 551. The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that the jury's question "affirmatively indicated" that the jurors were at an impasse. Id. at, P56, 161 P.3d at 552. The court clarified the impasse rule set forth in State v. Huerstel, 206 Ariz. 93, 99, P17, 101, P25, 75 P.3d 698, 704, 706 (2003), stating that it "does not require that the jury unequivocally state that it cannot reach a verdict, only that it give an 'affirmative indication' that it is deadlocked." Id.