§712-1221 Promoting gambling in the first
degree. (1) A person commits the offense of promoting gambling in the
first degree if the person recklessly advances or profits from gambling
activity by:
(a) Engaging in bookmaking to the extent that the
person receives or accepts in any seven-day period more than five bets totaling
more than $500;
(b) Receiving in connection with a lottery, or
mutuel scheme or enterprise, money or written records from a person other than
a player whose chances or plays are represented by such money or records; or
(c) Receiving or having become due and payable in
connection with a lottery, mutuel, or other gambling scheme or enterprise, more
than $1,000 in any seven-day period played in the scheme or enterprise.
(2) Promoting gambling in the first degree is
a class B felony. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1973, c 201, pt of §1; am L
1983, c 161, §1; am L 1987, c 83, §1; gen ch 1992; am L 2022, c 111, §4]
Revision Note
In subsection (1)(a), "or" deleted pursuant to §23G-15.
Case Notes
Although it may have been error admitting into evidence, as
expert opinion under HRE rule 702, officer's testimony concerning §712-1231(b),
the social gambling defense, where defendant was not entitled to this defense
in a prosecution for promoting gambling in the first degree under subsection
(1)(c), error was harmless. 92 H. 98 (App.), 987 P.2d 996 (1999).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1980–2015 · leading case:
State v. Yip, 987 P.2d 996 (Haw. App. 1999).
State v. Yip, 987 P.2d 996 (Haw. App. 1999).
· cites it 18× “HRS § 712-1221 (emphasis added.) Therefore, as necessitated by the statutory definitions of the respective offenses, the trial court properly instructed the jury with respect to the knowing state of mind for the principal, in addition to the intentional state of mind for the…”
State v. Jumila, 950 P.2d 1201 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 4× “4; Interference with the Operator of a Public Transit Vehicle, HRS § 711-1112; Promoting Prostitution in the First Degree, HRS § 712-1202; Promoting Prostitution in the Second Degree, HRS § 712-1203; Promoting Gambling in the First Degree, HRS § 712-1221; Promoting Gambling…”
Marsland v. Pang, 701 P.2d 175 (Haw. App. 1985).
· cites it 3× “4 At the time the complaint was filed, the maximum penalties for the various alleged offenses were as follows: Offense Penalty HRS § 712-1221 Promoting gambling Io Class C felony 5 years’ imprisonment (§ 706-660(3)) or $5,000 fine (§ 706-640(2)) HRS § 712-1222 Promoting gambling…”
State v. Kanda, 620 P.2d 1072 (Haw. 1980).
· cites it 5× “2 Paragraph (l)(a) of this section reads as follows: § 712-1221 Promoting gambling in the first degree.”
State v. Balauro, 828 P.2d 267 (Haw. 1992).
· cites it 2× “*72 On March 19, 1990, defendant was indicted for Promoting Gambling in the First Degree, HRS § 712-1221 (Supp. 1990), and Possession of a Gambling Device, HRS § 712-1226 (1985).”
State v. Auld., 361 P.3d 471 (Haw. 2015).
“8 relating to identity theft in the third degree; section 708-852 relating to forgery in the second degree; section 708-854 relating to criminal possession of a forgery device; section 708-875 relating to trademark counterfeiting; section 710-1071 relating to intimidating a…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1221(1) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1221(2) — 1 case
State v. Kanda, 620 P.2d 1072 (Haw. 1980).
“2 Paragraph (l)(a) of this section reads as follows: § 712-1221 Promoting gambling in the first degree.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1221(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Kanda, 620 P.2d 1072 (Haw. 1980).
“2 Paragraph (l)(a) of this section reads as follows: § 712-1221 Promoting gambling in the first degree.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1221(l)(c) — 1 case
State v. Yip, 987 P.2d 996 (Haw. App. 1999).
“HRS § 712-1221 (emphasis added.) Therefore, as necessitated by the statutory definitions of the respective offenses, the trial court properly instructed the jury with respect to the knowing state of mind for the principal, in addition to the intentional state of mind for the…”
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.