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

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.

The procuring agent defense is unavailable to a charge of promoting a dangerous drug. 71 H. 134, 785 P.2d 941.

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.

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

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.

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

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