§134-52 Switchblade
knives; prohibitions; penalty. (a)
Whoever knowingly carries concealed on the person, or in a bag or other
container carried by the person, any switchblade knife shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(b) Whoever
knowingly possesses or intentionally uses or threatens to use a switchblade
knife while engaged in the commission of a separate felony or misdemeanor shall
be guilty of a class C felony; provided that a person shall not be prosecuted
under this subsection when the separate felony or misdemeanor is an offense
otherwise defined by this chapter.
(c) A conviction and
sentence under subsection (b) shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any
conviction and sentence for the separate felony or misdemeanor; provided that
the sentence imposed under subsection (b) may run concurrently or consecutively
with the sentence for the separate felony or misdemeanor.
(d) It shall be a
defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) that the person was lawfully
present in the person's own home at the time of the offense.
(e) For the purposes
of this section, "switchblade knife" means any knife having a blade
that opens automatically by:
(1) Hand pressure applied to a button or other device
in the handle of the knife; or
(2) Operation of inertia, gravity, or both. [L 1959,
c 225, §1; Supp, §264-9; HRS §769-1; ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1990, c
195, §4; am L 2024, c 21, §5]
Case Notes
A butterfly knife is
not a switchblade knife. 73 H. 89, 828 P.2d 272 (1992).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case:
State v. Jhun, 927 P.2d 1355 (Haw. 1996).
State v. Jhun, 927 P.2d 1355 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 7× “Consequently, a grand jury indicted Jhun for assault in the second degree in violation of HRS § 707-711(1)(d) 1 and possession of a switchblade knife in violation of HRS § 134-52 (1998). 2 During his trial, Jhun admitted that he had stabbed Cornelius in the arm, but claimed he…”
In the Interest of Doe, 828 P.2d 272 (Haw. 1992).
· cites it 8× “Minor raises two points on appeal: 1) whether a butterfly knife is prohibited as a type of switchblade knife under HRS § 134 — 52; and 2) whether HRS § 134-52 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to butterfly knives.”
State v. Riddall, 811 P.2d 576 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-52 (1985); Tex.Penal Code Ann.”
State v. Rackle, 523 P.2d 299 (Haw. 1974).
· cites it 2× “4 In 1972 the Legislature enacted HRS § 134-52 which provides: “Whoever knowingly manufactures, sells, transfers, possesses, or transports in the State any switchblade knife, being any knife having a blade which opens automatically (1) by hand pressure applied to a button or…”
State v. Ho, 782 P.2d 29 (Haw. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Defendant Darryl Louis Ho (Defendant) appeals from his conviction by a jury for the offenses of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1243 (1985), Count II; Promoting a Detrimental Drug in the Third Degree, HRS § 712-1249 (1985),…”
State v. Arakaki, 744 P.2d 783 (Haw. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “3 Defendant was also charged with and tried for the offenses of driving on the left of center of roadway in violation of HRS § 291C-46 (1985), and possession of a switchblade knife in violation of HRS § 134-52 (1985). However, the district court acquitted Defendant of those…”
State v. Reed, 762 P.2d 803 (Haw. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The trial court had refused to suppress the incriminating evidence against Reed and had convicted him for the Illegal Possession of a Switchblade Knife plus the Third-Degree Promotion of the Harmful Drug Valium in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 134-52 (1985) and…”
Teter v. Connors (D. Haw. 2020).
· cites it 3× “2d 272 (1992), which held that butterfly knives were not encompassed in an existing ban on “switchblade knives,” HRS § 134-52. See Haw. Legis. S. Comm. on Judiciary, Standing Comm.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-52(a) — 1 case
Teter v. Connors (D. Haw. 2020).
“2d 272 (1992), which held that butterfly knives were not encompassed in an existing ban on “switchblade knives,” HRS § 134-52. See Haw. Legis. S. Comm. on Judiciary, Standing Comm.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.