Long v. State
5 Terry 262, 44 Del. 262, 65 A.2d 489 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant may assert a mistake of law defense to a bigamy charge if, before remarrying, the defendant made a bona fide, diligent effort to ascertain the law by consulting with and relying upon the advice of a reputable attorney that a prior foreign divorce was valid.
Facts:
- Defendant Long was married and resided in Delaware with his first wife for thirty years before they separated in October 1945.
- On September 21, 1946, Long moved to Arkansas, testifying that he intended to establish a permanent domicile there and to obtain a divorce.
- After remaining in Arkansas for the statutory residency period, Long initiated divorce proceedings against his wife, who was a non-resident of Arkansas.
- An Arkansas court granted Long a decree of absolute divorce on January 7, 1947; his first wife did not appear in the proceeding.
- On the same day the divorce decree was granted, Long left Arkansas and returned to Wilmington, Delaware, where he had previously accepted a job offer.
- On January 25, 1947, Long married his second wife in Wilmington, Delaware.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Delaware prosecuted Long for bigamy in a Delaware trial court.
- The trial court excluded evidence related to Long's reliance on an attorney's advice that his Arkansas divorce was valid.
- The trial court instructed the jury that for the Arkansas divorce to be valid, Long must have been domiciled in Arkansas at the time the decree was granted.
- A jury found Long guilty of bigamy.
- Long, the appellant, appealed his conviction to this appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant's good faith reliance on an attorney's advice that a foreign divorce decree is valid, after making a diligent effort to ascertain the law, a defense to a charge of bigamy?
Opinions:
Majority - Pearson, J.
Yes, a good faith reliance on an attorney's advice, after a diligent effort to ascertain the law, constitutes a defense to bigamy. The court reasoned that while ignorance of the law is generally not an excuse, an exception exists for crimes like bigamy which are not inherently immoral and involve complex legal questions. The court distinguished a general unawareness of the law from a situation where a defendant makes a bona fide, diligent effort to ascertain and abide by the law by consulting with a reputable attorney. Such a mistake of law negatives the general criminal intent required for a bigamy conviction. The court also held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that domicile must exist on the date the divorce decree is granted; the correct inquiry is whether domicile existed when the divorce action was commenced. The combination of these errors was prejudicial to the defendant, warranting a new trial.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant exception to the traditional maxim 'ignorantia juris non excusat' (ignorance of the law is no excuse). It creates a viable mistake of law defense for crimes that are not malum in se (wrong in themselves) but involve complex legal statuses, such as marriage and divorce. The decision sets a high standard for this defense, requiring a defendant to prove diligent, good-faith efforts to follow the law by seeking and relying on professional legal counsel. This precedent influences how courts evaluate criminal intent in cases where a defendant's conduct is criminal only because of a complex, underlying legal status that they reasonably believed did not exist.
Unlock the full brief for Long v. State