FRED ALLERY WAS CONVICTED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN NORTH DAKOTA OF ATTEMPTING TO RAPE HIS 12-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER. THE DAUGHTER, HER THREE SISTERS, AND ALLERY'S WIFE TESTIFIED AGAINST HIM. HE APPEALED THE CONVICTION ON THE GROUNDS THAT HIS WIFE'S TESTIMONY VIOLATED THE COMMON-LAW PRIVILEGE PROHIBITING TESTIMONY OF ONE SPOUSE AGAINST ANOTHER AND A NORTH DAKOTA STATUTE OF A SIMILAR NATURE. THE CONVICTION WAS UPHELD. IN PREVIOUS CASES, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PROHIBITION OF TESTIMONY OF ONE SPOUSE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THE OTHER DID NOT APPLY TO CASES IN WHICH ONE SPOUSE HAD BEEN INJURED BY THE OTHER. OVER THE YEARS THIS EXCEPTION HAS BEEN EXPANDED. NOW IT INCLUDES SEXUAL OFFENSES, SUCH AS ADULTERY, INCEST, AND RAPE, COMMITTED BY THE SPOUSE WITH A THIRD PERSON. A MAJORITY OF STATES ALSO PERMIT SPOUSAL TESTIMONY FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED AGAINST A CHILD OF THE SPOUSE. IN ALLOWING THE WIFE'S TESTIMONY, THE COURT FOUND FIVE REASONS FOR ALLOWING SPOUSAL TESTIMONY WHEN A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED AGAINST A CHILD OF EITHER SPOUSE: (1) SINCE A SERIOUS CRIME AGAINST A CHILD IS AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE FAMILY, THE RATIONALE OF PROTECTING FAMILY HARMONY IS INAPPLICABLE; (2) SINCE MOST CHILD ABUSE CASES OCCUR IN THE HOME, PARENTAL TESTIMONY IS ESSENTIAL; (3) ANY RULE THAT IMPEDES THE DISCOVERY OF TRUTH IN A COURT OF LAW IMPEDED THE DOING OF JUSTICE; (4) STATE COURT AUTHORITY (IN THIS CASE, NORTH DAKOTA) RENDERS ANTIMARITAL TESTIMONY ADMISSIBLE IN CASES INVOLVING A CRIME AGAINST A CHILD OF EITHER SPOUSE; AND (5) RECENTLY PASSED STATE STATUTES ALLOW SUCH TESTIMONY. THE ARTICLE IS FOOTNOTED. (GLR)