Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 712
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242 (2026)

  Promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §712-1242  Promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree.  (1)  A person commits the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree if the person knowingly:

     (a)  Possesses twenty-five or more capsules, tablets, ampules, dosage units, or syrettes, containing one or more dangerous drugs;

     (b)  Possesses one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of:

          (i)  One-eighth ounce or more, containing methamphetamine, heroin, morphine, fentanyl, or cocaine or any of their respective salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; or

         (ii)  One-fourth ounce or more, containing any dangerous drug; or

     (c)  Distributes any dangerous drug in any amount.

     (2)  Promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree is a class B felony. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1975, c 163, §6(d); am L 1982, c 9, §2; am L 1987, c 176, §7 and c 356, §2; am L 1988, c 291, §1; am L 1989, c 163, §2; gen ch 1992; am L 1996, c 308, §3; am L 2002, c 161, §7; am L 2004, c 44, §6; am L 2007, c 27, §1; am L 2016, c 231, §55; am L 2025, c 4, §2]

 

Note

 

  Applicability of L 2016, c 231, §55 amendment, see Note at §712-1241.

 

Revision Note

 

  In subsection (1)(a), "or" deleted pursuant to §23G-15.

 

Case Notes

 

  Procuring agency defense is not applicable to charge under subsection (1)(c).  58 H. 234, 566 P.2d 1370 (1977).

  Instruction was erroneous which required the jury to find that defendant knew the substance was heroin upon the State's showing by chemical analysis that it was heroin.  61 H. 308, 603 P.2d 141 (1979).

  Because undisputed evidence at trial was that defendant did nothing more than offer to buy cocaine from police sergeant, defendant did not, as a matter of law, violate subsection (1)(c).  78 H. 317, 893 P.2d 168 (1995).

  In the absence of a bill of particulars, where the evidence adduced at trial proves only a sale and a reasonable juror could find that the defendant did not act on the seller's behalf, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the procuring agent defense.  93 H. 279, 1 P.3d 281 (2000).

  Although there was substantial evidence to conclude that defendant was drug distributor in violation of this section, defendant was entitled to a procuring agent defense instruction as (1) a jury instruction must be given on every defense if there is any support in the evidence "no matter how weak, inconclusive or unsatisfactory the evidence may be", (2) defendant's participation in drug transaction negotiation or touching the drugs or money involved did not foreclose a procuring agent defense, (3) determining whether defendant was an agent of buyer was for the fact finder, and (4) there was support in evidence for a procuring agent defense.  113 H. 385, 153 P.3d 456 (2007).

  Disregarding the erroneously admitted testimony of the police criminalist as to the weight of the substances, the record was devoid of any evidence of the requisite weight of the methamphetamine, a material element of the offenses charged; because those material elements of the offenses were not supported by substantial and admissible evidence, prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove every element of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.  115 H. 343, 167 P.3d 336 (2007).

  Where promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree was a lesser included offense of the charged offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the first degree, and evidence established that defendant knowingly distributed methamphetamine, case remanded to convict defendant of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree.  115 H. 343, 167 P.3d 336 (2007).

  Method used to prove that capsules of methaqualone hydrochloride contained methaqualone accepted as evidence.  1 H. App. 31, 613 P.2d 919 (1980).

  Instruction charging the jury that proof that the defendant distributed the substance proven to be cocaine was sufficient to show defendant had knowledge of the nature of the substance was erroneous.  1 H. App. 544, 622 P.2d 619 (1981).

  Chain of custody requirements.  1 H. App. 546, 622 P.2d 620 (1981).

  Evidence was sufficient to prove distribution; it was not necessary to introduce cocaine itself into evidence.  10 H. App. 1, 860 P.2d 610 (1993).

  Cited:  700 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (2010).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 82 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: State v. Aluli, 893 P.2d 168 (Haw. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Aluli, 893 P.2d 168 (Haw. 1995). · cites it 67× “The drug trafficking statutes, including HRS § 712-1242, make a clear distinction between distributors ( i.”
State v. Manewa, 167 P.3d 336 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 36× “) [5] HRS § 712-1242 provides in pertinent part: Promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree.”
State v. Gonsalves, 119 P.3d 597 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 26× “NOTES [1] HRS § 712-1242 provided in relevant part: (1) A person commits the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree if the person knowingly: .”
State v. Akau, 185 P.3d 229 (Haw. 2008). · cites it 26× “Therein, the ICA affirmed the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's [1] October 15, 2004 judgment, convicting Akau of, and sentencing him for, — pursuant to his conditional guilty plea — three counts of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree, in violation of Hawai`i…”
State v. Bovee., 394 P.3d 760 (Haw. 2017). · cites it 16× “Act 231 also amended HRS § 712-1242(1)(c) (Supp. 2016) (promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree) in order to expand its application to methamphetamine distribution.”
State v. Rivera, 102 P.3d 1044 (Haw. 2004). · cites it 8× “95-2564 and 96-1456, both involving the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 712-1242, a class B felony. Thus, Rivera's mandatory minimum sentence under HRS § 706-660.”
State v. Kong., 315 P.3d 720 (Haw. 2013). · cites it 10× “Kong signed a petition for admission, in which he waived his right to a trial, confirmed his understanding that the charges against him would be dismissed if he successfully completed the program, and confirmed his understanding that he would proceed to a stipulated facts trial…”
State v. Pattioay, 896 P.2d 911 (Haw. 1995). · cites it 10× “1992), Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree (Count VIII), in violation of HRS § 712-1242(1)(B)(ii) (Supp.1992), Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree (Count IX), in violation of HRS § 712-1243 (Supp.”
State v. Balanza, 1 P.3d 281 (Haw. 2000). · cites it 9× “HRS § 712-1242 is readily comprehensible to persons of common understanding.”
State v. Mattiello, 978 P.2d 693 (Haw. 1999). · cites it 10× “At the time of the alleged offenses, HRS §712-1242 provided in relevant part that "[a] person commits the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree if the person knowingly: .”
State v. Davalos, 153 P.3d 456 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 14× “We hold that (1) there was substantial evidence upon which to conclude that Petitioner was a distributor of drugs, see HRS § 712-1240 (1993), 5 in violation of HRS *387 § 712-1242(1), (2); (2) however, Petitioner was entitled to a procuring agent defense instruction inasmuch as…”
State v. Diaz, 58 P.3d 1257 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 8× “NOTES [1] HRS § 712-1242 provides in relevant part: (1) A person commits the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree if the person knowingly: (a) Possesses twenty-five or more capsules, tablets, ampules, dosage units, or syrettes, containing one or more…”
Show all 82 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(1) — 6 cases
State v. Pimentel, 603 P.2d 141 (Haw. 1979).
State v. Yaw, 572 P.2d 856 (Haw. 1977).
State v. Kelsey, 566 P.2d 1370 (Haw. 1977).
State v. Davalos, 153 P.3d 456 (Haw. 2007). “We hold that (1) there was substantial evidence upon which to conclude that Petitioner was a distributor of drugs, see HRS § 712-1240 (1993), 5 in violation of HRS *387 § 712-1242(1), (2); (2) however, Petitioner was entitled to a procuring agent defense instruction inasmuch as…”
State v. Ho, 782 P.2d 29 (Haw. App. 1989).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(1)(B)(ii) — 1 case
State v. Pattioay, 896 P.2d 911 (Haw. 1995). “1992), Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree (Count VIII), in violation of HRS § 712-1242(1)(B)(ii) (Supp.1992), Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree (Count IX), in violation of HRS § 712-1243 (Supp.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Monay, 943 P.2d 908 (Haw. 1997).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(1)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Zuffante. Opinion by Recktenwald, C.J., Concurring in Part & Dissenting in Part. Dissenting Opinion by Ginoza, J. ICA s.d.o., filed 09/18/2024 [ada], 155 Haw. 95. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/23/2024. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 02/05/2025 [ada]. (Haw. 2025).
State v. Clowe, 475 P.3d 315 (Haw. App. 2020).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(1)(b)(i) — 13 cases
State v. Manewa, 167 P.3d 336 (Haw. 2007). “) [5] HRS § 712-1242 provides in pertinent part: Promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree.”
State v. Aluli, 893 P.2d 168 (Haw. 1995). “The drug trafficking statutes, including HRS § 712-1242, make a clear distinction between distributors ( i.”
State v. Kearns, 867 P.2d 903 (Haw. 1994).
State v. Eleneki, 102 P.3d 1075 (Haw. 2004).
State v. Gaspar, 801 P.2d 30 (Haw. App. 1990).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(1)(c) — 13 cases
State v. Aluli, 893 P.2d 168 (Haw. 1995). “The drug trafficking statutes, including HRS § 712-1242, make a clear distinction between distributors ( i.”
State v. Bovee., 394 P.3d 760 (Haw. 2017). “Act 231 also amended HRS § 712-1242(1)(c) (Supp. 2016) (promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree) in order to expand its application to methamphetamine distribution.”
State v. Akau, 185 P.3d 229 (Haw. 2008). “Therein, the ICA affirmed the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's [1] October 15, 2004 judgment, convicting Akau of, and sentencing him for, — pursuant to his conditional guilty plea — three counts of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree, in violation of Hawai`i…”
State v. Gonsalves, 119 P.3d 597 (Haw. 2005). “NOTES [1] HRS § 712-1242 provided in relevant part: (1) A person commits the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree if the person knowingly: .”
State v. Mattiello, 978 P.2d 693 (Haw. 1999). “At the time of the alleged offenses, HRS §712-1242 provided in relevant part that "[a] person commits the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree if the person knowingly: .”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(2) — 2 cases
State v. Aluli, 893 P.2d 168 (Haw. 1995). “The drug trafficking statutes, including HRS § 712-1242, make a clear distinction between distributors ( i.”
State v. Bovee., 394 P.3d 760 (Haw. 2017). “Act 231 also amended HRS § 712-1242(1)(c) (Supp. 2016) (promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree) in order to expand its application to methamphetamine distribution.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(3) — 3 cases
State v. Gonsalves, 119 P.3d 597 (Haw. 2005). “NOTES [1] HRS § 712-1242 provided in relevant part: (1) A person commits the offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree if the person knowingly: .”
State v. Akau, 185 P.3d 229 (Haw. 2008). “Therein, the ICA affirmed the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's [1] October 15, 2004 judgment, convicting Akau of, and sentencing him for, — pursuant to his conditional guilty plea — three counts of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree, in violation of Hawai`i…”
State v. Keaweehu, 129 P.3d 1157 (Haw. App. 2006).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(c) — 1 case
State v. Manewa, 167 P.3d 336 (Haw. 2007). “) [5] HRS § 712-1242 provides in pertinent part: Promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(l)(B)(ii) — 1 case
State v. Pattioay, 896 P.2d 911 (Haw. 1995). “1992), Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree (Count VIII), in violation of HRS § 712-1242(1)(B)(ii) (Supp.1992), Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree (Count IX), in violation of HRS § 712-1243 (Supp.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Baranco, 884 P.2d 729 (Haw. 1994).
State v. Monay, 943 P.2d 908 (Haw. 1997).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(l)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Chong, 949 P.2d 130 (Haw. App. 1997).
State v. Iwatate, 120 P.3d 260 (Haw. App. 2005).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(l)(b)(i) — 17 cases
State v. Manewa, 167 P.3d 336 (Haw. 2007). “) [5] HRS § 712-1242 provides in pertinent part: Promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree.”
State v. Cramer, 299 P.3d 756 (Haw. 2013).
State v. Kupihea, 46 P.3d 498 (Haw. 2002).
State v. Eleneki, 102 P.3d 1075 (Haw. 2004).
State v. Aluli, 893 P.2d 168 (Haw. 1995). “The drug trafficking statutes, including HRS § 712-1242, make a clear distinction between distributors ( i.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(l)(c) — 24 cases
State v. Aluli, 893 P.2d 168 (Haw. 1995). “The drug trafficking statutes, including HRS § 712-1242, make a clear distinction between distributors ( i.”
State v. Akau, 185 P.3d 229 (Haw. 2008). “Therein, the ICA affirmed the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's [1] October 15, 2004 judgment, convicting Akau of, and sentencing him for, — pursuant to his conditional guilty plea — three counts of promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree, in violation of Hawai`i…”
State v. Davalos, 153 P.3d 456 (Haw. 2007). “We hold that (1) there was substantial evidence upon which to conclude that Petitioner was a distributor of drugs, see HRS § 712-1240 (1993), 5 in violation of HRS *387 § 712-1242(1), (2); (2) however, Petitioner was entitled to a procuring agent defense instruction inasmuch as…”
State v. Manewa, 167 P.3d 336 (Haw. 2007). “) [5] HRS § 712-1242 provides in pertinent part: Promoting a dangerous drug in the second degree.”
State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379 (Haw. 1984).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1242(l)(e) — 2 cases
State v. Aluli, 893 P.2d 168 (Haw. 1995). “The drug trafficking statutes, including HRS § 712-1242, make a clear distinction between distributors ( i.”
State v. Davalos, 153 P.3d 456 (Haw. 2007). “We hold that (1) there was substantial evidence upon which to conclude that Petitioner was a distributor of drugs, see HRS § 712-1240 (1993), 5 in violation of HRS *387 § 712-1242(1), (2); (2) however, Petitioner was entitled to a procuring agent defense instruction inasmuch as…”
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.