dissenting: I recognize the hearsay rules and the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation are important guarantees to insure a fair trial. There are, however, recognized exceptions to the introduction of hearsay evidence (K.S.A. 60-460), and Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 605-608, 100 S.Ct. 2531 (1980) reconciles hearsay exceptions with that Sixth Amendment right.
I believe the statement of Linda Axvig should be admitted into evidence pursuant to K.S.A. 60-460(d)(3). Lorin Axvig is deceased and is, therefore, unavailable. The circumstances surrounding Lorin’s statement to Linda concerning his involvement and that *177of the defendant Myers in the murder of Kevin Kitchens show it meets the test of reliability.
The statement was made in confidence with a reasonable expectation Linda would never repeat it due to the marital privilege. That expectation of privacy adds credence and reliability to the statement. Lorin’s statement was spontaneous and was against his penal interest, “indicia of reliability which have been widely viewed as determinative of whether a statement may be placed before the jury though there is no confrontation of the declarant.” Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 89, 27 L.Ed.2d 213, 91 S.Ct. 210 (1970). I would admit the statement into evidence.
Schroeder, C.J. and McFarland, J., join the foregoing dissenting opinion.