by a desire to prevent the witness from giving testimony). The only state case we have discovered to the contrary is Gonzalez. The defendant was on trial for capital murder and the State sought to introduce the murder victim/witness’s statement to the police regarding the identity of her shooter, which she made prior to her death. Gonzalez, 155 S.W.3d at 606-07. The defendant argued that admission of these statements denied him his right to confront witnesses. Gonzalez, 155 S.W.3d at 605. The court disagreed, finding that the defendant forfeited his confrontation rights under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine. Gonzalez, 155 S.W.3d at 610. The Gonzalez court relied upon Reynolds and a California case, People v. Giles, 123 Cal. App. 4th 475, 488, 19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 843, 851 (2004) (<HOLDING>). Gonzalez, 155 S.W.3d at 610. Although the
holding that the defendant forfeited his confrontation rights where he kept the police from finding his wife so she could not testify but not addressing the intent requirement holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case holding that defendant waived his confrontation rights by threatening witness not to testify holding that if the reason the victim cannot testify at trial is that the accused murdered her then the accused should be deemed to have forfeited the confrontation right even though the act with which the accused is charged is the same as the one by which he allegedly rendered the witness unavailable holding that if the witness cannot testify because the defendant murdered her then the defendant is deemed to have forfeited his confrontation rights even though the act he is charged with is the same act that caused the witnesss unavailability