Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
--------
Question: CONTEXT: We don't know. All we know is that Chiron assaulted him with the chair. Certainly he was injured but we don't know the severity of the injuries. Given that Chiron is only sent to juvie it's extremely unlikely that Terrel was killed. Thus a charge of the Assault variety would seem likely but that is also unknown. We also don't know how long Chiron was in juvie but most age out of the juvenile system at 18, assuming he was tried as a minor. However, there is a 10 year time jump between the assault and when we see Chiron again so any sentence would have been less than that since Chiron has now relocated to another city, is considerably larger than before and is now established as a drug dealer.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Terrel?

Answer: Yes


Question: CONTEXT: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged." Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again, even for new evidence (there are exceptions, such as proof of fraud). Its purpose is to strike a balance between the rights of the defendants and plantiffs as well as to make the courts run more efficiently ... kind of like the principle of double jeopardy under criminal law. The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata. So in this episode, where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon.  <sep>  Q: Does it seem to you that The Good wife season 4 episode 6 ending was wrong? A: where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon  Q: Do you have legal knowledge to confirm that facts presented were mainly wrong? A: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What are the grounds to reopen a military case?

Answer: Yes


Question: CONTEXT: There's no canon answer I've ever heard or read. Also, don't forget that Wick was a hard-core hitman and killer from a very early age, so saying he was a "puppy" or "fragile" in the beginning doesn't hold a lot of merit, although it could be said his wife dying brought out the coldness that was always inside.  <sep>  Q: John receives a small puppy and the beginning and later on takes with him a stronger piitbull puppy Was this and act of symbolisim?

Answer:
Yes