§712-1247 Promoting a detrimental drug in
the first degree. (1) A person commits the offense of promoting a
detrimental drug in the first degree if the person knowingly:
(a) Possesses four hundred or more capsules or
tablets containing one or more of the Schedule V substances;
(b) Possesses one or more preparations, compounds,
mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of one ounce or more, containing
one or more of the Schedule V substances;
(c) Distributes fifty or more capsules or tablets
containing one or more of the Schedule V substances;
(d) Distributes one or more preparations, compounds,
mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of one-eighth ounce or more,
containing one or more of the Schedule V substances;
(e) Possesses one or more preparations, compounds,
mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of one pound or more, containing
any marijuana;
(f) Distributes one or more preparations, compounds,
mixtures, or substances of an aggregate weight of one ounce or more, containing
any marijuana;
(g) Possesses, cultivates, or has under the person's
control twenty-five or more marijuana plants; or
(h) Sells or barters any marijuana or any Schedule V
substance in any amount.
(2) Promoting a detrimental drug in the first
degree is a class C felony.
(3) Any marijuana seized as evidence of a
violation of this section in excess of one pound may be destroyed after it has
been photographed and the weight thereof recorded. The remainder of the
marijuana shall remain in the custody of the police department until the
termination of any criminal action brought as a result of the seizure of the
marijuana. Photographs duly identified as accurately representing the
marijuana shall be deemed competent evidence of the marijuana involved and
shall be admissible in any proceeding, hearing, or trial to the same extent as
the marijuana itself; provided that nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to limit or to restrict the application of rule 901 of the Hawaii rules
of evidence. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1975, c 163, §6(i); am L 1981, c 31,
§3 and c 123, §1; am L 1986, c 314, §75; am L 1989, c 384, §2]
Revision Note
In subsection (1)(a) to (f), "or" deleted pursuant
to §23G-15.
Case Notes
Criminalization of marijuana is constitutional. 56 H. 501,
542 P.2d 366 (1975).
Where a bill of particulars, under a charge of distributing
marijuana, states that defendant "offered or agreed to sell"
marijuana, State is limited to proving the particulars specified in the bill,
notwithstanding the definition of "distribute" contained in §712-1240(1).
60 H. 8, 586 P.2d 1022 (1978).
Where violation of misdemeanor offense under §712-1247(1)(d)
also constituted violation of felony offense under subsection (1)(h),
conviction of felony offense would have constituted violation of defendant's
due process and equal protection rights. 86 H. 48, 947 P.2d 360 (1997).
Hawaii county ordinance that established cannabis offenses as
the lowest law enforcement priority in the county conflicted with, and was
therefore preempted by, this section and other state laws governing the
investigation and prosecution of alleged violations of the Hawaii Penal Code
concerning the adult personal use of cannabis. 135 H. 411, 353 P.3d 953
(2015).
Procuring agent for the buyer defense was available against a
charge of bartering a drug and was available to a defendant who was buyer's
accomplice. 78 H. 488 (App.), 896 P.2d 944 (1995).
Since to sell and to barter do not include to prescribe,
§712-1248(1)(d) is not a lesser included offense of §712-1247(1)(h). 78 H. 488
(App.), 896 P.2d 944 (1995).
Where a Hawaii county ordinance made the enforcement of
marijuana laws the lowest enforcement priority in the county, the ordinance was
preempted by state laws governing the investigation and prosecution of alleged
violations of the Hawaii Penal Code concerning the adult personal use of
cannabis. 132 H. 511 (App.), 323 P.3d 155 (2014).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2023 · leading case:
State v. Hoang, 947 P.2d 360 (Haw. 1997).
State v. Hoang, 947 P.2d 360 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 44× “It is with respect to the third and fourth of the foregoing patterns that the knowing dis *54 tribution of marijuana, in violation of HRS §§ 712-1247 and -1248, see supra notes 1 and 2, presents an anomaly, and therein lies the source of the problem that has generated this…”
Ruggles v. Yagong., 353 P.3d 953 (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 14× “” We disagree and affirm the ICA’s clear holding that “the LLEP conflicts with, and is thus preempted by state law governing the investigation and prosecution of alleged violations of the Hawaii Penal Code concerning the adult personal use of cannabis,” namely HRS Chapter 329…”
State v. Mallan, 950 P.2d 178 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 8× “[39] HRS § 712-1247 (1993), as amended, now provides in relevant part: Promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree.”
State v. Rullman, 896 P.2d 944 (Haw. App. 1995).
· cites it 18× “HRS § 712-1247(1) states in relevant part as follows: Promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree.”
State v. Stachler, 570 P.2d 1323 (Haw. 1977).
· cites it 4× “Defendant-appellant James Stachler appeals from a conviction for Promoting a Detrimental Drug in the First Degree under HRS § 712-1247(l)(e) (Special Pamphlet, 1975).”
State v. Jumila, 950 P.2d 1201 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 4× “5; Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree, HRS § 712-1242; Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree, HRS § 712-1243; Promoting a Harmful Drug in the Second Degree, HRS § 712-1245; Promoting a Harmful Drug in the Third Degree, HRS § 712-1246; Promoting a…”
State v. Dorson, 615 P.2d 740 (Haw. 1980).
· cites it 4× “The defendants were convicted of the offense of promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree, under HRS § 712-1247(lXe). 1 They appeal from the judgment and sentence of the trial court.”
State v. Barnes, 568 P.2d 1207 (Haw. 1977).
· cites it 2× “The defendant was convicted on two counts charging him with promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree, contrary to HRS § 712-1247(1) (f). The defendant appeals from the judgment and sentence of the circuit court.”
State v. Balanza, 1 P.3d 281 (Haw. 2000).
· cites it 2× “1995), held that the procuring agent defense was available to a defendant charged with violating HRS § 712-1247(l)(h) (1993), which specifies “[s]ells or barters any marijuana .”
State v. Rosborough, 615 P.2d 84 (Haw. 1980).
· cites it 4× “2 pounds of marijuana, in violation of HRS § 712-1247(1)(e) (1976) and with possession of marijuana in any amount, in violation of HRS § 712-1249 (1976).”
State v. Reed, 881 P.2d 1218 (Haw. 1994).
· cites it 2× “In Erickson , the defendant was charged with distributing marijuana in violation of HRS § 712-1247(1)(f). 60 Haw. at 8 , 586 P.”
State v. Hatori, 990 P.2d 115 (Haw. App. 1999).
· cites it 6× “The supreme court held: [W]e do not find that the legislature’s differing treatment of alcohol and marijuana is so arbitrary and irrational as to violate equal 'protection. Perhaps the legislature has chosen to exempt alcohol from proscription because it has found, in the wake…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1247(1) — 3 cases
State v. Rullman, 896 P.2d 944 (Haw. App. 1995).
“HRS § 712-1247(1) states in relevant part as follows: Promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree.”
State v. Barnes, 568 P.2d 1207 (Haw. 1977).
“The defendant was convicted on two counts charging him with promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree, contrary to HRS § 712-1247(1) (f). The defendant appeals from the judgment and sentence of the circuit court.”
State v. Hoang, 947 P.2d 360 (Haw. 1997).
“It is with respect to the third and fourth of the foregoing patterns that the knowing dis *54 tribution of marijuana, in violation of HRS §§ 712-1247 and -1248, see supra notes 1 and 2, presents an anomaly, and therein lies the source of the problem that has generated this…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1247(1)(d) — 1 case
State v. Hoang, 947 P.2d 360 (Haw. 1997).
“It is with respect to the third and fourth of the foregoing patterns that the knowing dis *54 tribution of marijuana, in violation of HRS §§ 712-1247 and -1248, see supra notes 1 and 2, presents an anomaly, and therein lies the source of the problem that has generated this…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1247(1)(e) — 4 cases
Ruggles v. Yagong., 353 P.3d 953 (Haw. 2015).
“” We disagree and affirm the ICA’s clear holding that “the LLEP conflicts with, and is thus preempted by state law governing the investigation and prosecution of alleged violations of the Hawaii Penal Code concerning the adult personal use of cannabis,” namely HRS Chapter 329…”
State v. Mallan, 950 P.2d 178 (Haw. 1998).
“[39] HRS § 712-1247 (1993), as amended, now provides in relevant part: Promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree.”
State v. Rosborough, 615 P.2d 84 (Haw. 1980).
“2 pounds of marijuana, in violation of HRS § 712-1247(1)(e) (1976) and with possession of marijuana in any amount, in violation of HRS § 712-1249 (1976).”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1247(1)(f) — 1 case
State v. Reed, 881 P.2d 1218 (Haw. 1994).
“In Erickson , the defendant was charged with distributing marijuana in violation of HRS § 712-1247(1)(f). 60 Haw. at 8 , 586 P.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1247(1)(g) — 2 cases
State v. Hoang, 947 P.2d 360 (Haw. 1997).
“It is with respect to the third and fourth of the foregoing patterns that the knowing dis *54 tribution of marijuana, in violation of HRS §§ 712-1247 and -1248, see supra notes 1 and 2, presents an anomaly, and therein lies the source of the problem that has generated this…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1247(1)(h) — 1 case
State v. Hoang, 947 P.2d 360 (Haw. 1997).
“It is with respect to the third and fourth of the foregoing patterns that the knowing dis *54 tribution of marijuana, in violation of HRS §§ 712-1247 and -1248, see supra notes 1 and 2, presents an anomaly, and therein lies the source of the problem that has generated this…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1247(2) — 2 cases
State v. Hoang, 947 P.2d 360 (Haw. 1997).
“It is with respect to the third and fourth of the foregoing patterns that the knowing dis *54 tribution of marijuana, in violation of HRS §§ 712-1247 and -1248, see supra notes 1 and 2, presents an anomaly, and therein lies the source of the problem that has generated this…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1247(l)(e) — 12 cases
State v. Stachler, 570 P.2d 1323 (Haw. 1977).
“Defendant-appellant James Stachler appeals from a conviction for Promoting a Detrimental Drug in the First Degree under HRS § 712-1247(l)(e) (Special Pamphlet, 1975).”
Ruggles v. Yagong., 353 P.3d 953 (Haw. 2015).
“” We disagree and affirm the ICA’s clear holding that “the LLEP conflicts with, and is thus preempted by state law governing the investigation and prosecution of alleged violations of the Hawaii Penal Code concerning the adult personal use of cannabis,” namely HRS Chapter 329…”
State v. Mallan, 950 P.2d 178 (Haw. 1998).
“[39] HRS § 712-1247 (1993), as amended, now provides in relevant part: Promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1247(l)(f) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1247(l)(h) — 3 cases
State v. Hoang, 947 P.2d 360 (Haw. 1997).
“It is with respect to the third and fourth of the foregoing patterns that the knowing dis *54 tribution of marijuana, in violation of HRS §§ 712-1247 and -1248, see supra notes 1 and 2, presents an anomaly, and therein lies the source of the problem that has generated this…”
State v. Rullman, 896 P.2d 944 (Haw. App. 1995).
“HRS § 712-1247(1) states in relevant part as follows: Promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree.”
State v. Balanza, 1 P.3d 281 (Haw. 2000).
“1995), held that the procuring agent defense was available to a defendant charged with violating HRS § 712-1247(l)(h) (1993), which specifies “[s]ells or barters any marijuana .”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 712-1247(lXe) — 1 case
State v. Dorson, 615 P.2d 740 (Haw. 1980).
“The defendants were convicted of the offense of promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree, under HRS § 712-1247(lXe). 1 They appeal from the judgment and sentence of the trial court.”
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.