32:T519,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"People v. Foggie, 57 A.D.2d 964","datePublished":"1977-05-31","legislationDate":"1977-05-31","citation":"People v. Foggie, 57 A.D.2d 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","description":"Read the full text of People v. Foggie (People v. Foggie, 57 A.D.2d 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)). This legal opinion, filed in 1977-05-31, from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/people-v-foggie--5820149"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/people-v-foggie--5820149","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, People v. Foggie, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, People v. Foggie, 57 A.D.2d 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T45a,

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 28, 1975 (the date on the clerk’s extract is July 2, 1975), convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The jury pool, when defendant-appellant was tried, consisted of approximately 20% women. The jury panel contained eight men and four women. Although a higher percentage of women in the jury pool is desirable, the composition at the time of defendant’s trial was not at an impermissible level (see People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36). In the light of the overwhelming proof of guilt, the errors complained of were harmless and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Her contention that the sentencing provisions of the narcotics statutes are unconstitutional as applied, to her is without merit (see People v Broadie, 37 NY2d 100, cert den 423 US 950). Cohalan, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.