In State v. LeBlanc, 186 Ariz. 437, 440, 924 P.2d 441, 444 (1996) the Arizona Supreme Court directed trial courts to "give a 'reasonable efforts' instruction in every criminal case involving lesser-included offenses." That instruction permits jurors to consider a lesser offense "if, after full and careful consideration of the evidence, they are unable to reach agreement with respect to the greater offense because they . . . either: (1) find the defendant not guilty on the greater charge, or; (2) after reasonable efforts cannot agree whether to acquit or convict on that charge." Id. at 438, 924 P.2d at 442. The Arizona Supreme Court questioned the premise of the Wussler decision that it was necessary to "micromanage" jury discussions and deliberations. The court recognized that juries "possess both common sense and a strong desire to properly perform their duties" and ought to be treated like "responsible adults" rather than "untrustworthy children." Id. The court determined "the better practice" was to allow a jury to "deliberate on a lesser offense if it either: (1) finds the defendant not guilty on the greater charge, or; (2) after reasonable efforts cannot agree whether to acquit or convict on that charge." Id. at 438, 924 P.2d at 442. It then directed trial courts to "give a 'reasonable efforts' instruction in every criminal case involving lesser-included offenses." Id. at 440, 924 P.2d at 444.