Is a prospective juror who equivices with every single definition of the definition of a crime a potential juror?

"A tendency toward equivocation is seldom the first quality sought in a prospective juror by the party bearing the burden of proof." (People v. Lancaster (2007) 41 Cal.4th 50, 76.) As the prosecutor stated during jury selection, the crimes at issue were complicated and involved jury instructions for second degree murder, implied and direct malice, and voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. We agree with the trial court that the prosecution's desire not to have a juror "who is going to quarrel with every single definition" was a gender-neutral rationale for excusing M.S., and the statements made by M.S. during voir dire supported the trial court's determination on this point.