People v. Cole, 219 N.Y. 98 (1916)

A person who offers prayer for healing, in accordance with the recognized tenets of a legitimate church, may be exempt from medical licensing requirements, but this exemption does not protect fraudulent or insincere practices done in the name of religion.

Summary

Cole, a Christian Science practitioner, was convicted of practicing medicine without a license. He argued that his prayer-based healing practice was protected under a statutory exception for religious practices. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the statutory exception for the “practice of the religious tenets of any church” could apply to Cole’s actions, provided he was genuinely practicing the tenets of the Christian Science Church and not using it as a pretense for an unlicensed medical practice. The court emphasized that the question of good faith in practicing religious tenets should have been presented to the jury.

Facts

Willis Vernon Cole, a member of the Christian Science church, maintained an office and offered Christian Science “treatment” (prayer) for the healing of diseases. An investigator from the New York County Medical Society, posing as a patient, visited Cole multiple times seeking treatment for eye and stomach trouble. Cole did not prescribe medicine but offered prayer and advice, such as suggesting the removal of glasses and a porous plaster. Cole stated Christian Science treatment was prayer to God, and that disease was no part of a person’s birthright. It was conceded that Christian Science is a recognized religion founded in 1866 by Mary Baker Eddy. To be a practitioner, the church focuses on the sincerity of the applicant and their faith in the power of prayer.

Procedural History

Cole was indicted for practicing medicine without lawful authorization and registration. He was tried in the New York Supreme Court, Criminal Term. The first trial resulted in a hung jury. A second trial resulted in a guilty verdict. Cole appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the judgment. He then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the statutory exception for “the practice of the religious tenets of any church” in New York’s Public Health Law exempted Cole’s prayer-based healing practice from the requirement of medical licensure.

Holding

No, the judgement was reversed because the lower court did not let the jury determine if the defendant was in good faith practicing the tenets of such a church within the meaning of the statutory exception, because if Cole’s actions constituted a genuine practice of the religious tenets of the Christian Science Church, he would be exempt from the medical licensing requirements.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals interpreted the Public Health Law’s exception for religious practices. The court acknowledged the state’s power to regulate the practice of medicine to protect public health, and emphasized that the definition of practicing medicine was deliberately broad to encompass various methods of treating or curing disease. The court stated that it is a tenet of the Christian Science church that prayer to God will result in complete cure of particular diseases. The Court emphasized that the exception must be applied in good faith, preventing individuals from using religious practice as a mere pretext for operating an unlicensed medical business. The court emphasized that the religious tenets of a church must be practiced in good faith to come within the exception and when such practice is a fraud or pretense it is not protected. The Court found that the trial court erred by not allowing the jury to determine whether Cole was genuinely practicing the tenets of the Christian Science church. Chief Judge Bartlett concurred, arguing for a broader protection of treatment by prayer, questioning the legislature’s power to criminalize such practices. Judge Chase, writing for the majority, stated, “A person should not be allowed to assume to practice the tenets of the Christian Science or any church as a shield to cover a business undertaking.” He further noted that “when wrong is practiced in the name of religion it is not protected by Constitution or statute.”