Is a trial court's failure to question each juror privately regarding a juror misconduct claim an issue of abuse of power not one of constitutional significance?

Moreover, a trial court's failure to question each juror privately regarding a juror misconduct claim presents an issue of abuse of discretion, not one of constitutional magnitude, such as whether the defendant was denied his or her right to a fair trial under the federal or state Constitutions. (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 927-928, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571.) Pinholster explained, "Certainly, when there is a claim of juror misconduct, the court must conduct 'an inquiry sufficient to determine the facts ... whenever the court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a [47 Cal.App.4th 1066] juror may exist.' But failure to conduct a sufficient inquiry is ordinarily viewed as an abuse of discretion, rather than as constitutional error." (Id. at p. 928, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571, citations omitted.) Pinholster added, "while individual questioning may have been preferable, we have never held that it is constitutionally required." (Ibid.) Nonetheless, the failure to conduct an adequate inquiry may be prejudicial. (Ibid.)