Summary of Conclusion:
In conclusion, the trial court did not apply the compelling interest balancing test that Part I, Article 5 requires. Nor, understandably, did it make the factual findings necessary to determine whether, under the test, the defendant’s possession and sacramental use of psilocyn and/or psilocybin mushrooms are protected under Part I, Article 5. We therefore vacate the trial 22 court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Order on motion to dismiss is vacated and remanded.
HICKS, HANTZ MARCONI, and DONOVAN, JJ., concurred.