In People v. Caro (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1035, one of the regular jurors was excused before the alternates were selected. The trial court proposed to select three alternates and to have one of them replace the excused juror. Counsel agreed to the procedure. On appeal, the defendant complained that the trial court had not reopened jury selection. The court acknowledged that the defendant "would have a claim for reversal under People v. Armendariz," but for his failure to object. (Id. at p. 1047.) The court noted that there was "no indication that defendant was in any way dissatisfied with the panel as it was constituted," moreover, "defense counsel stipulated to the procedure." (Ibid.)