The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Urselina King, Appellant

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, holding that the trial court's pre‑voir dire hardship excusal procedure did not constitute a reversible mode‑of‑proceedings error, that the exclusion of third‑party culpability evidence was proper, and that the failure of counsel to object to gender‑stereotyped summation remarks did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court reasoned that the hardship inquiry occurred before formal voir dire and was not a material stage, that the proffered evidence was speculative and hearsay, and that counsel’s overall representation was meaningful. A dissenting opinion would have reversed on the jury‑selection and ineffective‑assistance grounds.