Case Name: UNITED STATES, Respondent, v. ANDREW P. SCHOW, Appellant
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1890-01
Citations: 6 Utah 381
Docket Number: 
Parties: UNITED STATES, Respondent, v. ANDREW P. SCHOW, Appellant.
Judges: Zane, C. J., and Hendebson, J., concurred.
Reporter: Utah Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 381–382

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Respondent, v. ANDREW P. SCHOW, Appellant.
Criminal Law. — Unlawful Co-habitation. — Evidence.—Corpus Delicti. — On an indictment for unlawful cohabitation, the deliberately made confessions of the defendant that he committed the offense with which he is charged, made out of court and proved at the trial by two witnesses are sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Appeal from a motion refusing a new trial and from a judgment of tbe district court of tbe second district. Tbe evidence in tbis case showed tbat tbe defendant was arrested while traveling from southern Utah to Salt Lake City. He bad a woman with him in tbe wagon, and stated that tbe woman with him was bis second wife. He then stated that be was guilty of tbe crime of unlawful co-habitation. Afterwards he was arraigned upon an indictment for unlawful co-babitation with two women named therein, but be stated in open court that the name of bis second wife was wrong, and tbat he was guilty and would plead guilty to an indictment charging him with unlawful co-babitation with his two wives for the time charged.
Mr. Preshy Denny for tbe appellant.
Mr. Charles S. Varían, U. S. Attorney, and Mr. John M. Zane, Assistant U. S. Attorney, for tbe respondent.

Opinion:
BlacKbuen, J.
Tbe judgment in tbis case must be affirmed. We think the evidence fully supports tbe verdict of the jury, and we find no error in tbe instructions of the court, or in any of the proceedings in tbe case. The defendant was convicted alone on tbe proof of bis admissions made out of court, and tbe contention of bis counsel is tbat such proof does not justify a verdict of guilty. It is true that tbis character of testimony is to be taken and considered with great caution. The evidence shows that the admissions upon which conviction was had, were deliberately and intelligently made, and were fully and particularly proved by two intelligent witnesses. Admissions of this character are of great weight, and most satisfactory. 1 Grreenl. Ev. Sec. 200. The judgment is affirmed.
Zane, C. J., and Hendebson, J., concurred.