State v. Mack
New Hampshire Supreme Court
249 A.3d 423 (2020)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Jeremy Mack (defendant) belonged to a Native American church. The church’s religious practices involved using psilocybin mushrooms as a religious sacrament. Under the church’s rules, the mushrooms were to be taken while alone, with strict prohibitions against taking the mushrooms in public or around children. Law-enforcement officers were in Mack’s residence for unrelated reasons when they saw some of his psilocybin mushrooms and seized them. Under New Hampshire state law, psilocybin mushrooms were a controlled substance, and it was a criminal offense to possess them. Although Mack told law enforcement that the mushrooms were used only to exercise his sincerely held religious beliefs, the state charged Mack with a single count of violating a state criminal law prohibiting the possession of a controlled substance. Mack moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that because his possession of the mushrooms had not disturbed the public peace, the criminal charge violated his right under the New Hampshire Constitution to freely exercise his religious beliefs. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that a law could interfere with an individual’s religious practices provided that the law was generally applicable and did not target the practices. Mack was convicted and appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bassett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 920,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
