In re Grady (1964)
On August 24, 1964, the same day that the California Supreme Court issued its decision in the Woody case, it also issued an opinion in another religious peyote case.1 This second case involved a man by the name of Arthur Grady, described in the court’s opinion as a “self-styled peyote preacher and way shower.”2
Mr. Grady lived with a number of people in an isolated area of Palm Springs, California. The home was owned by a man named Gerald Kelly who gave Mr. Grady free room and board in exchange for Mr. Grady teaching Mr. Kelly and the other residents deep-breathing exercises, how to pray, “and in general how to live the Christian Life.”3 Mr. Grady incorporated the use of peyote into his religious teachings, preparing peyote for the others to ingest in religious ceremonies held in Mr. Kelly’s home. Grady testified that peyote “is a very spiritual plant because it gives you direct contact with God.”4 He described peyote’s actions as working “on all four planes of consciousness simultaneously, and when used for prayer the best thing that can happen to you.”5 The Palm Springs Police Department saw things differently.
After receiving a tip that peyote was being used at Mr. Kelly’s home, police officers staked out the house. During six days of secret surveillance they “noticed a number of cars and substantial activity around the house.” Although this sort of activity would be expected around a group home, it is also the sort of activity that law enforcement officers conventionally associate with drug dealing. On three occasions, the officers observed an unidentified person go to a spot approximately seventy feet from the house and dig around in the sand.
Based on these scanty observations, and coupled with the information provided by the informant that began the investigation, the officers obtained a search warrant. On May 24, 1962, they raided the home. Inside Mr. Kelly’s home, the officers found a number of gelatin capsules which laboratory analysis confirmed to contain peyote. When they searched the ground where they had earlier seen people digging, they found a buried sack of peyote buttons. Everyone inside the house (Mr. Grady, Mr. Kelly and his wife, and three other adult males) were arrested and charged with criminal possession of peyote. A sixteen-year-old girl found sleeping in one of the bedrooms was turned over to juvenile authorities.
In the trial court, the judge refused to allow the defendants to present a religious defense and they were all convicted of violating the state’s peyote prohibition. Mr. Grady filed a writ of habeas corpus asserting that his conviction violated his constitutional right to practice his religion. His writ was granted by the California Supreme Court which held that under its decision in Woody, filed that same day, the trial court should have been permitted Mr. Grady to present evidence that his possession of peyote was religiously motivated. Since the trial court refused to consider Mr. Grady’s religious claims, and bared him from presenting evidence to that effect, the California Supreme Court concluded that a new trial was necessary in order to answer the factual question of whether Mr. Grady was in fact engaged in an honest and sincere religious practice of peyotism.6
The Grady case is significant because it clarified and extended the holding in Woody, which involved Indians who were members of the Native American Church. Not only was Mr. Grady not an Indian, he also was not a member of the Native American Church. Entailed in the California Supreme Court’s holding therefore, was the acknowledgment that neither Indian blood nor membership in the Native American Church were necessary prerequisites to asserting a religious defense to criminal charges involving the use of peyote. Instead, a defendant was simply required to show that he or she used “peyote in connection with bone fide practice of a religious belief.”7 As we will see in the chapters to follow, other courts deciding entheogen cases have not been so lenient. Many have drawn bright lines separating Indians from non-Indians (raising Equal Protection Clause issues), and distinguishing the Native American Church from other churches (raising Establishment Clause issues).
Notes
1In re Grady (Cal. 1964) 39 Cal.Rptr. 912, 304 P.2d 728.
2Id. at p. 913
3Ibid.
4Ibid.
5Ibid.
6Ibid.
7 Ibid at p. 913.
