In People v. Engelman (2002) 28 Cal.4th 436, the defendant contended the giving of CALJIC No. 17.41.1 impaired the free and private exchange of views that is an essential feature of the right to jury trial guaranteed by the federal and California Constitutions, that it encroached on his state constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict, and that it violated his federal constitutional right to due process of law in that it arbitrarily deprived him of a state entitlement. (Id. at p. 866.) The defendant also contended the instruction constituted a structural defect in the trial and thus was reversible per se. (Ibid.) The Engelman court rejected the defendant's claim that the giving of this instruction constituted error, structural or otherwise. (See id. at p. 873.) As the court explained: "We are not persuaded that, merely because CALJIC No. No. 17.41.1 might induce a juror who believes there has been juror misconduct to reveal the content of deliberations unnecessarily (or threaten to do so), the giving of the instruction constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to trial by jury or otherwise constitutes error under state law." ( People v. Engelman, supra, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 868.) The court also rejected the defendant's claim based on the state constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict and to the independent and impartial decision of each juror, finding that "the instructions as a whole fully informed the jury of its duty to reach a unanimous verdict based upon the independent and impartial decision of each juror." (Ibid., citing CALJIC Nos. 17.40 and 17.50.)