Prior to presenting his case before the Supreme Court, the Petitioner was convicted of illegally smuggling heroin into the United States and conspiracy to import, based upon the testimony of his wife.

The Petitioner then appealed, claiming that the admission of the adverse testimony of his wife, over his objection, contravened prior precedent and therefore constituted reversible error.

"(a) The modern justification for the privilege against adverse spousal testimony is its perceived role in fostering the harmony and sanctity of the marriage relationship.

"(c) Since 1958, when Hawkins was decided, the trend in state law has been toward divesting the accused of the privilege to bar adverse spousal testimony" [31 states recognized the privilege against adverse spousal testimony at the time of Hawkins, but at the time of this decision only 24 still did].

Consideration of the foundations for the privilege and its history thus shows that 'reason and experience' no longer justify so sweeping a rule as that found acceptable in Hawkins.